


Mm 



■11 



'iMiIitjii!ill!Lkiiiiiijii''a 



'■■';'i>:t;t:{.;:ii;: 



«:.J«« 






,1. ;M::')'ni;rl':.|.; !;..:.( '['lur.t.f'A.I'.r.t',' 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




DDDDSD7fl^lA 



I 







. *'»in* aO 'v ♦oho' .^ ^o^ -'rr-.' 



♦ 



« 
\ 



















,^ 



Of* • 














.0^ 



,*^ ...... •^^ 














f -^ -_-* O 







o -^^^ <i^ o 







<^ *o«o* ^^ 










t • o 























• .s* A 



,* ^'^> ^<» o; 

















•? 



/ 

f 

SPEECH 

OF 

miBo <5?o IBiiIEIB(DW2Ba 

OF VIHGINIA, 

ON THE 

RESTRICTION OF SLAVERY 

IN MISSOURI. 

Beliverzd in the Senate of the United States, Jan. 31, 1820. 



Mr. J. Barbour, of Virginia, delivered his sei> 
timents, in nearly the following terms : 

Mr. President : The Senate will do justice to my sin- 
cerity when I declare, that it is with unfeigned reluctance 
I rise to address them at this stage of the discussion ; 
that, had I yielded to my feeling's, instead of obeying a 
sense of duty, I should have remained silent. Whatever 
the human mind could well conceive, has been either 
spoken or written on this subject ; and no superiority of 
intellect could add an ade\itional ray of light. So vain a 
hope, therefore, with my humble pretensions, would be 
the height of folly. 

The question, however, involves such important conse- 
quences, whether we view it in its constitutional light, or 
as it regards the honor of the nation, plightud by treaty, 
or consider it as to its expediency, as involving the dura- 
tion of the Union, or in any event its tranquility, it seems 
to justify, if not to require, any man to disclose the rea- 
sons of his vote. But, personal considerations apart, the 
feeling which this policy, as insulting as it is unjust, has 
so justly excited in the South and West, in wliich my 
constituents so naturally participate, seems to require 
that their representative on this floor should raise his 
1 



6> 



.:bz3 



voice, however feeble, in solemn protest against its 3.^ 

doption. 

In the contemplation of this subject and the sentmients 
avowed in its discussion, I had expected to have felt noth- 
ing but unmixed regret ; 1 had expected to have travel- 
led an unpleasant path, filled only with thorns. To my 
relief I have found here and there a solitary spot of ver- 
dure, on which my eye dehghtedto dwell. 1 have seen 
the most prodigious display of the powers of the human 
mind ; 1 have seen its empire enlarged far beyond my 
most sanguine hopes. I do not mean to confine my re- 
marks to one or two, but to extend them to most of those 
who have engaged in the debate. They have surround- 
ed this body with deserved renown ; to which, although 
I feel a consciousness I cannot add, yet I must be permit- 
ted, as a member of the body, to claim some participation. 
But 1 have seen more ; I have seen a degree of firmness 
and magnanimity most ennobUng to human nature. Sena- 
tors rising supecipr to clumor and popular excitement, 
and filling the measure assigned them by the constitution 
at the expence of office, with the sacrifice of populari- 
ty, firmly discharging their duty. Such men, compared 
wi'th the supple politician, who bends Ike a reed to the 
blast ; who, to promote his own aggrnndizement; practis- 
es upon the prejudices of mankind, will, by an impartial 
posterity, when the false fire of the moment shall liave 
subsided, be placed in the zenith, while the latter will be 
consigned to the nadir, of the moral world. Go on, illus- 
trious Senators! in the career of glory you have com- 
menced ! Abide whatever sacrifice the faithful discliarge 
of your duty may produce, with fortitude ! and reap your 
reward, in the consolation of reflecting that you have sav- 
ed your country from ruin, and in the justice of all trying 
time With these exceptions, all that I have heard lias 
filled me with solicitude and pain. I have heard senti- 
ments uttered that go to shake the foundations of the 
Union, and to produce a revolution in the government ; 
principles avowed directly hostile to the compact on 
which reposes our Union, and tlie doctrine avowed, that 
all power not prohibited belong* to the general govern- 
ment To combat these, to deprive them ol all authority, 
by showing their fallacy, will be the object of my endeav- 
ors Before, however, I proceed to tins, let me notice 
an attempt which has been made to give a character to 
this question which it does not deserve. It has been said 
Uiat this is a question between slavery and freedom. A 
more indefensible perversion was never attempted to be 
practised on the human mind. Such a statement of the 
question is a libel on the South. I appeal, without the 
fear of coniradiction, to every member of the Senate, 
from every quarter of the Union, when I ask if the SouUi- 



s 

ern members have not invariably supported, with unani- 
mity, every proposition which had for its object the sup- 
pression of the slave trade ; and whether, during the last 
session, we did not indulge them in the project, as wild 
as it was well-designed, of expending thousands for the 
accommodation of the unfortunate victims of that abom- 
inable trade, by authorizing the government to provide 
t^^em an asylum in Africa, to be maintained at the public 
expence. Can, then, any man believe we wish to multi- 
ply the number ? The question wc are called to discuss, 
is not whether slaves shall be multiplied. If it was, there 
would be but one sentiment here. What is the real 
question ? Shall we violate the constitution, by imposing 
restrictions on the people of Missouri ? While exercising 
the great privilege of forming their government, shall 
we disregard the solemn obligations imposed by treaty ? 
And shall we finally do an unmeasurable act of injustice, in 
excludingthe people of one half the republic from partici- 
pating in that country bought by a common treasure and 
their exclusive counsels ? And for what ? Not to diminish 
slavery, but to confine it within its present limits — de- 
structive to the slaves themselves, and fatal eventually to 
the whole population — instead of diflfusing them over a 
wide-spread country, where their comf -rts would be in- 
creased, and by their disproportionate numbers they 
might be within the reach of the suggestions of policy 
and of humanity. Not to diminish slavery, I repeat 
again ; but to seduce the white population from this por- 
tion of country thus interdicted, and to increase the dis- 
proportion of the blacks to such an extent as forever to 
shut the door of hope upon them ; or to drive us from 
the country, and surrender it exclusively to them. 

This is the real state of the question, which I will now 
proceed to discuss ; and, for the sake of perspicuity, I 
propose to do so under the following heads : 1st. You 
have no constitutional right to impose the restriction in- 
volved in the amendment. 2d, That the treaty by which 
we acquired the country forbids it. And, od. That it is 
inexpedient and unjust to do so, 

1st. Your constitutional right. It may not be unim- 
portant, in discussing this branch of the subject, to as- 
cend to the origin of the government. To ascertain its 
Jiumiiity, its progress in acquiring power, and its now 
alarming pretensions. A discussion of this character will 
not be entirely without its use in reference to the gene- 
ral course of our legislation. Some gentlemen may there- 
by acquire the information they seem to lack, that all 
power not prohibited is not granted necessarily to the gov- 
ernment, as has been contended for by at least one of the 
-speakers who have^gone before me. The present constitu- 
tion isnothingmorethananexpinsionoftheconfederatioo J 



Its object is the same ; the means of attaining that object 
have only been enlarged. And what was that ? To operate 
on oun external concerns, and to regulate such subjects 
internafty as could not, fronr. their character and extent, 
be prii^rly administered by any of the states ; and there 
only tpf'^e extent specifically enumerated in the consti- 
tution, It will be recollected, that this mass of power, 
awarded to the confederation, was surrendered by sove- 
reign states, whose jealousy of the general government 
was such, that^ as experience evinced in the practical re- 
sults, |hey were entirely incompetent to the object. It 
is w'orthy of remark, how cautiously they guarded a- 
gainst the abuse of this very limited authority, by the 2d 
article of that instrument, which is to the effect follow- 
ing : 

" Art. 2. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, 
and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and 
right, which is not by this confederation expressly dele- 
gated to the United States in Congress assembled." 

I invite the attention of the Senate particularly to the 
phraseology of this article, as disclosing the real design 
of the contracting parties as to the extent of the power 
of the individual states, and of the general government. 
And, sustaining the position I have before taken as to the 
objects whose administration was intended to be confid- 
ed to the general government, I have been thus fall on 
this branch of the subject, because, although a similar 
clause was not introduced in the constitution of the Unit- 
ed States, yet it was distinctly understood the same prin- 
ciple attached to the constitution, as well from the spe- 
cific enumeration of the powers, as the cotemporary ex- 
positions by the most approved writers • but, above all, 
by tlie 10th amendment of the constitution, to the effect 
following : " The powers not delegated to the United 
btates by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the 
people." And it may be stated, that, if there was any one 
point on which the people of America universally agreed, 
it was that necessity of restraining the general govern- 
ment within the prescribed Umits, to guard against en- 
croachmcMts on the authority of the states, and thereby 
prevent a consolidation which has been universally con- 
sidered as a synonime with monaj'chy. 

These are truths geitrally admitted, and always have 
been, in the abstract ; but, in their application, we are mor. 
tified to perceive an endless variety of opinions, some 
contending for a latitude so wide in their interpretation of 
the powers of the government as to defy limitation ; 
while others insist, and justly insist, that they view the 
powers of the federal government, as resulting from the 
■eompact to which the states are parties, as limited by tlie 



^laiii sense and Intention of the instrtinnent constituting' 
that compact. This is the language of the celebrated 
resolutions of the Virginia Assembly. Not merely be- 
cause they were adopted by that body, but because^ it 
was a part of the republican creed, to which a vast majo- 
rity of the American people gave their hearty approba- 
tion, and by which the line was completely drawn be- 
tween the dirterent pohtical parties of that day. It is a 
sound principle, Avhich I wish to see revived, (for it 
seems to have been forgotten,) and resorted to, in all 
doubtful cases, as an infalhble standard. Andliere, I 
protest against a species of special pleading which, re- 
jecting the principle just alluded to, hunts for powers iii 
words or sentences, taken here and there from the in- 
strument and patched togethei-, forming something like a 
pretext for the exercise of powers palpably interdicted 
by the plain sense and intention of the instrument. These 
prehmiuaries being disposed of, we are brought to the 
conclusion that those wl)o contend for the power in ques- 
tion must show it. This has been attempted, and no 
two agree as to the portion of the constitution from 
which they derive the power. This circumstance of it- 
self is entitled to great consideration. If the subject had 
been of a character whose administration could not be 
effected by the states, in their nidividual character, one 
might be disposed to give a latitude of construction to the 
clause of the constiuitionj if any existed, that related to 
this subject ; but, wlien it is known that the subject of 
slavery had been exclusively under the control of the 
stat^s^ to the entire exclusion of the general government, 
except in a case of a peculiar character, (the slave trade,) 
before we assume upon ourselves the exercise of sucU 
an authority, we should be satisfied that the power has 
been plainly given. In lieu of which, one gentleman pre- 
tends to find it in a clause wiiose only object was a re- 
stramt upon Congress ; while another acknowledges that 
lie considers this clause as giving no such authority, and 
refers us to another; while other gentlemen select ne\7 
clauses imparting tins authority. 

Let us examine them respectively. 1st. let us consider 
the 1st clause of the 9l1i section, 1st article. Gentlemen 
contend that the v/ord 'migration,' is tie magical word in 
which is contained the power about to be exercised. 
The plain answer to this is, that it produces a confusion 
of ideas, to assert thata clause, whose palpaple design was 
to restrain Congress from exercising an authority, imparts 
a substantive grant of power ; but, it is reasoned, why 
restrain Congress, till the year 1808, from exercis- 
ing an authority which they did not possess ? Do gen- 
tlemen me?n to say that all power interdicted by the 
9lh section would belong to Congress, had not suQh re- 
1 * 



friction been inserted ? The gentltnian from New- 
Hampshire contends for this monstrous doctrine, and 
asks, had it not been for the clause interdictii.g titles of 
nobility, would not Congress have had the power to have 
created a nobility ? The gentleman seems not to under- 
stand the first principles of the government--for, if his 
doctrine be acted upon, it is equal to a revolution, and 
a government of limited powers would instantly be con- 
verted into one of absolute authority. I should have paid 
less attention to this doctrine by supposing that the gen- 
tFeman had not reflected upon it, had he not uttered 
- tRe same thing during the last session. It seems, there- 
fore, that this IS one of his fixed principles. A more here- 
tical or a more dangerous one, cannot well be conceived. 
;^t, sir, were I for a moment to yield a point so palpa- 
ble as this, still, I might contend that the gentlemen 
would be without the power contended for. What is 
life argumeiit on their part? That 'migration' and 'impor- 
tation* equally relate to slaves — That ' importation' re- 
lates\o foreign slaves, while 'migration' refers to domes- 
tic slaves passing from one state to another, and that 
Congress, therefore, has a right to prevent their passage 
to the Missouri. Now, I contend that 'migration' was 
intended to refer to free foreigners, coming to this coun- 
try, while 'importation' was intended to apply to skves 
from abroad This conclusion is warranted, as well by 
the phraseology of the section, as by the circumstances 
of the country. What is its language ? That the migra- 
tion or importation of such persons as any of the states 
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be 
prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808 : but 
a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not 
exceeding ten dollars for each person. If this interpre- 
tation be received, the meaning of the clause isintelJigi- 
ble and rational. By dropping 'migration' whfn speak- 
ing of a tax or duty, it may be fairly inferred that the migra- 
tion spoken of was, that of free men, to tax whom would 
be absurd. But the circumstances of the country at that 
time are entitled to great weight in forming our opm- 
ion. A large portion of the middle, southern, and west- 
ern states, were sparsely inhabited. It was among the 
grievances enumerated, as leading to the revolution, that 
the crown of Great Britain had indicated a hostility to the 
migration of foreigners. Hence, lest the more populous 
portions of the United States should indulge in a similar 
abuse of power, Congress was expressly interdicted from 
taking any step in relation thereto, prior to the year 1808. 
That this was the true import of this clansf, is not only 
sustained by the considerations to which I have just re- 
ferred, but is supported by an exposition given us at a 
period near tlie adoption of the constitution. Those who 



opposed the alien law in Congress insisted upon this in- 
terprevatijn, and none witii more force tliaii my prede- 
cessor, Judjje Tazewell, one of the most disliiiguished 
men of whom Virg-inia can boast. In his speech, which 
I have now before me, on the alien law, he liolds the 
lang-iiage 1 now do, and contended that Congress was 
virtually violating this clause. The Senate will recollect 
this discussion was in 1798; and it*is worthy of remark, 
that the application of this word to slaves was first made 
by tile friends of the ahen law, to elude the force of this 
argument. The committee of the House of Representa- 
■ tives, in an elaborate report, dravvn with a view to de- 
fend this law, assert that 'migration' related to slaves; 
but even the authors of that report contend only that it 
relates to the importation of slaves from abroad. But, 
we are told, Congress has fixed ihe meaning of tliis clause 
by the law of 1804, interdicting the bringing of slaves 
into Louisiana from any place in the United States, ex- 
cept by removal with their owners. But nothing is to be 
gained by this precedent. 1st. Louisiana was a territory, 
and not a state. 2d. It was the result of an excitement 
produced by peculiar causes, which have been amply 
detailed by the gentleman from South Carolina, and pass- 
ed probably without discussion. 3d. it was repealed at 
the next session, by the law i-elative to the territory ot 
Mississippi, in which Louisiana was placed on the same 
footing with that territory. So that, if it weigii any thing, 
it is against the interpretation contended for, as Congress 
retraced its steps withm one year after the passage of 
the law of 1804. But the admission for argument sake 
was a mere gratuity, that a negative clause might be in- 
terpreted into a grant of power. I contend, this clause 
gives no power. How should it be understood, ac- 
cording to the plain intent of the constitution? To Con- 
gress had been given the power to regulate foreign 
commerce, and to establish an uniform rule of natur^iza- 
tion. But, lest this power should be exercised against 
the wishes of a particular portion of the Union, for the 
reasons stated above, this clause was i troduced. I do 
not mean to be understood as saying any thing about the 
right of Congress to interfere in the case of the migra- 
tion of foreigners ; whether they have or not is not now 
involved; and its restriction till 1808 by no means im- 
plies necessarily such a power. For it is palpable that 
this section was drawn, out of abundant caution, 8c, as is 
evinced by the 4th clause of that section, Congress is 
interdicted from exercising an authority in any other 
way than had been previously prescribed. Its language 
is — no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless 
in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before 
directed to be taken. Hence, it follows that, as I said be- 



8 

■fore, a restraint on Congress does not imply the exist- 
ence of the power restrained; for 1 presunie the gentle- 
man from New Hampshire would iuirdly contend that 
Congress, even without this clause, would have had the 
power to vary the standard of the apportionment of di- 
rect taxation. But, it is said, that, as Congress has the 
power to prevent the importation of slaves under the 
clause of regulating foreign commerce, they have the 
power to prevent the passage of slaves from one state 
to another under the clause of regulating the commerce 
between the states. Now, sir, what is comnitrce, ac- 
cording to the commiOn understanding of niankincl, or 
in its strictest sense, as furnished by the most approved 
lexicographers? Ii is traffic. Andean any one soberly 
contend that a removal of the head of a family, like the 
patriarch of times gone by,- carrying with hiin his house- 
hold, is engaged in that kind of commerce whose regu- 
lation has been given to Congress. His slaves are a part 
of his family ; they have descended from generation to 
generation ; are the depository of the history of his fa- 
mily; h'ave rocked the cradle of his infancy, or have been 
companions of his youth; for them he has an affectionate 
regard; to preserve whom, if adversity come upon him, 
he will sell his home, and seek a more propitious fortune 
in the wilderness. Will any man call such a removal 
carrying on commerce ? But, again, what was the end in 
view in giving this power to Congress ? To ascertain 
this, let us recur to the state of this country prior to the 
adoption of the constitution. The states, having abso- 
lute authority over this subject, had adopted various and 
■vexatious regulations upon the commerce between each 
ether : they were as foreigners, each availing itself of 
its peculiar situation, at the expense of the other states. 
Those lying on the Atlantic made the interior tributary 
to them ; and, as in all unwisely-organized confederacies, 
this policy was generating heart-burnings, so unfavorable 
to union. To prevent this, to the parent government 
was given the power of regulating this commerce — the 
whole amount and object of which was, to guarantee an 
unrestrained intercourse between the states; not to 
shackle or embarrass it; still less to apply it to the ordi- 
nary intercourse between coterminous states in the end- 
less transactions occurring between their citizens. To 
relieve myself from a further comment on this part of 
the discussion, permit me to refer the Senate to the 11th 
No. of the Federalist. 1 will subjoin one other remark : 
if Congress were justifiable in attempting to legislate on 
this subject — I mean the commerce between the states — 
it can be done only by a general law; for the 5th 
clause of the 9th section of the 1st article expressly in- 
hibits Congress from a partial legislation ; and, by a re- 



cuiTeu^e to this clause, wliicb should be united with that 
giving- the power to Cong-ress to regulate the commerce 
between the states, it will be seen to what object this 
power was intended to relate : by it, the plain intent of 
the parties is so manifestly proclaimed, that I cannot see 
how it can be misunderstood by one honestly enquiring 
after its just meaning. 

But, it is contended by some, that this power- is to be 
found in the 3d section of the 2d clause of the 4th article. 
The answer to this is, that this clause relates to territo- 
ries, and not to states. As there is a bill depending* be- 
fore us directly involving your power to legislate on the 
territories, it is unnecessary to discuss this question now. 
It is sufficient to say that it is doubtful whether you have 
the power, even in reference to territories; but it Is 
palpable you can have none, under this clause, as it re- 
gards states. 

We now come to consider the last clause in the con- 
stitution in which it is contended that this power has 
been granted, viz. the 1st clause of the 3d section of the 
4th article. This is the only clause which, in my estima- 
tion, has any thing- to do with the subject. New states 
may be admitted, Jkc. This is a mere extension of the 
11th article of the confederation, which was linuted to 
the admission of Canada, and other colonies; meaning", 
no doubt, other Britisli colonies. To Canada the most 
perfect equality was guaranteed, by this clause, with the 
original members of the confederacy. The words "new 
states" must have been intended to convey a specific 
idea. The words are used by persons who distinctly un- 
derstood their import ; tor they were the direct repre- 
. sentatives of states whose attributes of sovereignty had 
been secured, in the 2d article of the confederation, by 
an express declaration, that all power was retained which 
had not been expressly given to the general government. 
And, in addition, the practice ot twelve years had left 
no doubt as to the power which had been retained and 
exercised by the states. When, then, they gave to Con- 
gress the power of admitting new states into this Union, 
it must be understood that, with the exception of the 
power then transferred to the g-eneral government, 
or expressly withheld by the constitution, all other 
power belonged to the states, and, the moment that a 
new state is admitted into the Union, it is placed upon 
the most perfect equality with the other states, as well 
to its riglits as its obligations. But it is, that 'new states 
may be admitted into this Union " My friend from Ma- 
ryland has, in a masterly aj'gument, shewn that it is this 
Union into which they are to be admitted, and no other ; 
which would not ensue if to one state rights were given 
•v;hich were withheld from another: for the terms of the 



• 10 

Union, in that case, being different, the UnioH could not 
be the same ; and, therefore, they would not be admitted 
into this Union. It would be worse than useless for me 
to add any thing to what he has said, ^yhat, then, is 
your power ? Simply whether you will admit or refuse. 
This is the limit of your power. And even this power is 
subject to control. Whenever a territ®ry is sufficiently 
larg-e, and its population sufficiently numerous, ycur dis- 
cretion ceases, and the obligation becomes imperious, 
that you forthwith admit. For I hold that, according to 
the spirit of the constitution, the people thus circum- 
stanced are entitled to the privilege of self-government. 

Have we not a right to contend, that, if the Convention 
had intended to give to Congress the pou er of admitting 
on conditions, it would have said so ? The constitution 
has not authorized the exercise of such a power directly, 
and there is nothing to justify the exercise of such a 
power by implication, if implication were allowable. 

If, then, it be true, that your discretion, even as to ad- 
mission, is limited, as I have endeavored to show, and in 
the present case all the constituent qualifications exist on 
the part of the people of Missouri for self-government, 
you are bound to say that she shall be admitted as a state 
into this Union. If she be admitted as a state, all the at- 
tributes of the old states instantly devolve on her, and the 
most prominent of those attributes is the right to fashion 
her government according to the will and pleasure of the 
good people of that state : whereas your restriction de- 
prives her of that privilege forever ; and your restriction 
applies to a species of property that most pecuharly be- 
longs to the jurisdiction of the state government. For, 
can it be believed, that the states holding slaves could 
ever have intended to impart to non-slave-holdmg states 
an authority over a property in which tliey had no com- 
mon interest ; a property, in relation to which, so f?.r 
from the necessity of surrendering the power to control 
it to the general government, self-preservation required 
that it should be left exclusively to the state-governments. 

To all this it is repUed, that the uniform course of the 
government, since the ordinance of '87, amounts to a pre- 
cedent not now to be canvassed. 

Incases of doubt it is readily admitted tliat dccbions, 
after mature deliberation, upon full discussion of distin- 
guished men, arc entitled to great weight in analogous 
cases. Now, sir, how far will the proceedings of Con- 
gress under the ordinance operate as a precedent ? The 
ordinance itself was founded in usurpation. No such povv- 
er hud been granted Congress by the confederation. I.est 
I should be charged with an assumption myself, I will 
call to my aid the work so frequently referred to — the 
Federalis't. In page 235, this is expressly admitted. . It 



11 

lb there slated that it was an assumption on the part oi 
CoagTtss. I have seen it stated, iud>. cd, in a paniph'et 
or speech, (for 1 know not what to cull it,) that Congress 
had the power, as incident to their cliaructer. Mark the 
facility with which every usurpation of power is jusdtied ! 
Wliat is not expressly given, may he implied ; or, if there 
be nothing to justify implication, it may be incidtntal ; 
and, if it be neither the one nor the other, the next step 
is, that it ought to have been given ; and tlius, by some 
means, every power which it is desirable to exercise, 
will be, or may be, claimed. But, rejecting these claims 
as entirely untenable, I assert, the ordinance itself was an 
assumption of power. It is admitted that it has been 
acquiesced in, aad all its provisions have been earned into 
effect. It is not now to be disturbed. But it still is 
nothing as a precedent ; because it attached to a wilder- 
ness, and not to men. Those who subsequently settled 
this country adopted it from choice. Their sentiments 
and habits were fusiiioned by the principles of the ordin- 
ance, and, when admitted into the Union, instead of the 
right of Congress to impose a restriction on them being 
denied, and discussed and seriously decided, I am Avar- 
ranted in saying that the question was never stirred. Why 
enquire into a condition that was perfectly useless, the 
people themselves not wishing to hold slaves ? But this 
I assert, that the people of the states embraced by this 
ordinance, when in Convention, considered themselves 
unrestrained, and considered the question with an exclu- 
sive eye to its expediency. 

The course therefore pursued by the government, un- 
der this ordinance, is not entitled to the least weight as 
a precedent; but, if it were, I beg leave to present various 
precedents of a directly different character. The states 
of Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Ala- 
bama, have all been admitted without restriction. To 
what then does the history of our proceedings amount ? 
That, in every instance, other than those connected with 
the ordinance, Congress has admitted without restric- 
tion. Congress has never before dared to apply it to a 
portion of country where slaves were ; in effect, where it 
was to amount to a restriction. It is, however, urged, that 
conditions were imposed on Louisiana. The principal 
part of these were merely in conformity to the great 
principles of freedom; were incorporated in the law in 
reference to the peculiar people whom we were about 
to introduce into the Union— people wiio had before liv- 
ed under a difterent form of government, and who were 
supposed not sufficiently versed in the principles of our 
government; and were justifiable only, if at all. under 
the power of Congress to guarantee to each member of 
the confederacy a republican form of government. I doubt, 



1 



<^ 



however, the power of Congress to impose them at all 
but sure I am, that they had no power to restrict them as 
to the languag-e wlucii they should employ in promulga- 
ting their laws. The best criterion to test the right of'Con- 
gress to impose this restriction, is to enquire by what 
means will they enforce obedience, were Louisiana to 
refuse a compliance. For, to every legitimate power you 
have the corresponding one of enforcement. AVhere the 
latter is wanting, the former does not exist. This I think 
may be assumed as an axiom in our government. The ex- 
ercise theiefore of this power was without right, and 
serves no other purpose than to show the facility with 
which all governments advance in the acquisition of 
power. They well may be likened to a screw : they never 
retrograde ; every acquisition becomes a temptation ta 
new aggressions, and notunfrequently the means by which 
they are realized. There is one idea so repeatedly ur- 
ged, that those who entertain it must have credit for 
tlir^.ir sincerity, and that is, that we have greater pow- 
er with the states to be formed out of acquired territory 
than ni that originally a part of the United States. 

By what course of argument this conclusion is arrived at, 
I am at a loss to discover. There is but one distinction ac- 
knowledged in the constitution between tiie then existing 
Bta!:s 6ttiiuse thereafter to be admitted, and that is coiifin- 
ed to the importation of slaves. This shows that in all other 
respects t!»ey were to be on an equal footing with the 
old states ; for, had such not been the design of the con- 
vention, as they discnminated in the one case, they would 
have done so in every particular where it was intended. 
In addition, it may be remarked, that, in the 3d clause of 
the 2d section of the 1st article, the same principle of 
representation, as it regards slaves, was to be extended to 
such states as may be admitted ; pointing directly to the 
clause, of course,' that new states might be admitted into 
the Union. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Mel'en) says 
that we impose no condition ; but that the people of Mis- 
souri, iftluy accept it, impose it on themselves. And 
he illustrates his idea by a comparison of this case with 
that of the Bank of the United btates. 1 regret to find 
that gentleman placing the great privilege of a people to 
govern thcniselves, upon so hum'^le a footing as an equa- 
iitv with a hank corporation. AVhere is the resemblance ? 
Congress has the right to refuse to incorporate a bank; 
if, however, it disjienses this privilege, it may impose 
what terms it pleases. If they be acceptable or other- 
wise, nciu can complain. But Congress is boiiiidby the 
constitution, in this (:asc,to admit Missouri inio the I^nion; 
if it refuse, it ui!l do an immeasurable injury to the 
people of Missouri, because it deprives tliem of the 



13 

g-f eat privilege of self government. If you impose con- 
ditions as Si sine qua 11071 to her admission, however se- 
vere these conditions may be, she may.possibly, to obtain 
possession of the inestimable blessing of self government, 
accede to them ; but her consent is obtained by a species 
of force. Justice claims of power its rights — power grants 
a part only, and requires, before that part be given, a 
reUnquishment of the remainder. Is this no condition, 
although justice, despairing of the whole, should acqui- 
esce in the terms presented by power? It is unneces- 
sary to add any thing to a proposition so palpable. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania says this is no restriction, 
but a blessing. Let the people of Missouri decide for 
themselves. We do not ask that Missouri shall admit 
slavery. All that we require is, that she may decide for 
herself. If it be, as gentlemen assert, a blessing, what 
have you to fear from the good sense of the people of 
Missouri ? You have pronounced them capable of self 
government m all the important concerns of life, except 
in this particular. Why not trust to her discretion in 
this ? Send out your go-carts of pamphlets, the substan- 
ces of speeches made in the Senate; pronounce before 
them your long Jeremiads against slavery, long as a 
Scotch coronation prayer,and can you doubt the success 
of your endeavors to prevent the introduction of slavery 
among them? Why leap the boundaries of the constitu- 
tion to force upon them that which you say is a blessing ? 
But, the gentleman from Pennsylvania asks, shall vre 
suffer Missouri to come into the Union with this savage 
mark on her countenance ? I appeal to that gentle- 
man, to know v/hether this be language to address to an 
American Senate, composed equally of members from 
states precisely in the condition that Missouri would be 
in, were she to tolerate slavery. Are these sentiments 
calculated to cherish that harmony and affection so essen- 
tial to any beneficial results from our Union ? But, sir, 
I will not imitate this course, and I will strive to repress 
the feeling which such remarks are calculated lo awaken. 
Permit me here to notice an observation made by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Otis,) who, in this 
instance, departed from his usual urbanity. Were he to 
visit Europe, he fears that,on his landing, his country be- 
ing known, he might be upbraided by some Spaniard, for 
example, who might tell him he was from tiie land ot' 
hypocrites — with freedom on their Ups, and the bloody 
scourge brandishing in their hands. Would the gentle- 
man be without an answer ? Might he notsa}', how dare 
you thus defame, you slave ? Do you not bow the knee 
before the bloody sceptre of cruelty and superstition ? 
Is not the emblem of your power the wheel of the inqui- 
2 



14 

sitioii ? Are you not the first people to kave commenced 
the barbarous traffic in slaves ? Are you not the last to 
surrender it? Have you not received a price to abandon 
it, and do you not at this time add perfidy to cruelty, by 
pursuing it to the utmost extent of which you are capa- 
ble ? Should the gentleman extend his tour to England, 
and there meet with the same accusation — feeling as he 
ought, and speaking as he felt, woul J he not indignantly 
denounce the insolence of the slanderer, by telhng him, 
to take the beam from his own eye before he attempted 
to remove the mote from his neighbor's ? Might he not 
ask, to whom are we indebted for slavery at all; is it not 
to England ? Have you not been engaged for centuries 
in ihis horrible traffic, and against the remonstrance of 
the people whom you now abuse ? Did not Virginia, of 
all the civilized world, first lift up her voice against this 
trade ? But she lifted it in vain. Gain was your object ; 
you weighed that against the peace and happiness of both 
hemispheres, and accepted it as an equivalent. Nor was 
ijt yielding to a momentary impulse of cupidity, or ignor- 
ance of its moral consequences. Kut you pursued it 
for centuries : and, altiiougK you were warned, by the 
glowing eloquence of your Wilberforce and your Clark- 
son, who thundered in your ears the sighs and lamenta- 
tions of the suffering victims of your wickedness,' and 
spoke, like angels trumpet-tongued, the deep damnation 
of your cf imes, you turned a deaf ear, deaf as an adder, 
and found your indemnity for all this in dollars and cents. 
Tis but yesterday you ceased ; and to-day you assume the 
moral chair, and pronounce homilies against the una- 
voidable effects of your crimes. For, what have the Ame- 
rican people not done ? Have they not, whenever any 
regard to their own peace would permit, emancipated 
the slave ? And where that was impracticable, have not 
the masters, by their kindness and affection, deprived 
slavery itself of its horrors? Cease, then, your defama- 
tion. Turn your eye to every region of the earth, where 
you bear sway, and, when you shall have relieved the 
wretched and oppressed, then, and not till then, pre- 
sume to preach reformation to others. With such mate- 
rials as these, delineated by his masterly hand, the blush 
he dreaded on his own account might be transferred to 
ills accuser. 

But both the gentlemen from Pennsylvania and New 
Hampshire have called to their aid the Declaration of In- 
dependence, and the sacred principles it consecrates. 
What has that to do with this question? Who were 
the parties— the slaves? No. Did slavery not exist in 
every state of the Union at the moment of its promulga- 
tion ? Did it enter into any human mind that it had the 



15 

ieust reference to this species of population ? Is there 
not at the present moment slaves in the very states from 
which we hear these novel doctrines ? 

How has ic happened, that tiiese doctrines have slept 
till this moment? Where were they at the adoption of ihe 
constitution, in which slavery is recog-nized, 8c the proper- 
ty guaranteed by an express clause ? And shall we, the 
mere creatures of that instrument, presume to question 
its authority ? To every other sanction imposed by our 
situation, is the solemn oath that we will support it. ""\Vhere 
are the consciences of gentlemer. who hold this lang'uag'e? 
But, they assure us, th^ttliey do not mean to touch this 
property in the old states. What, this eternal, and, as 
they say, immutable principle, consecrated by this fa- 
mous instrument, and in support of which we have ap- 
pealed to God, is to have no obligatory force on the very 
])arties who made it ; but attaclits instantly yovi crOiS 
ihe Mississippi! What kind of ethics is this, that is bound- 
ed by latitude and Iontritudc~-wluch is irjoperatire on the 
left, but is omnipotent on the right b\nkof a river? Such 
doctrines are well calculated to excite our solicitude ; 
for, although the gentlemen, who now hold it,are sincere 
in their declarations, and mean to content themselves 
with a triumph in this controversy, what security have 
we, that others will not apply it to the south generally ? 
This,sir,is no longer matter of speculation; you have heard 
the doctrine contended for already, not at cross roads, or in 
the city taverns, but in the legislative hall of a state. 
When it shall be resorted to by faction, who can pretend 
to prescribe its limits! Every page of history is full of 
melancholy proofs of the feebleness of that security, 
which reposes upon the moderation of the ambitious and 
designing. The means are always made to yield to the end. 
I, tlierefore, heard the doctrine with unmixed regret. I 
fear it is the beginning of new counsels, whose disas- 
trous effects no one can foresee. 

Sir, there is one view of this subject, which I wish to 
present to the Senate ; if you have the pretended pow- 
er, why not exercise it in the ordinary and only legitimate 
mode, by making it the subjectof legislative enactment ? 
Why seek, by compact with Missouri, to bolster your au- 
thority ? If you have the power, is her consent neces- 
sary ? If you have it not, can that consent give it you ? 
What should we think of any man, when the bankrupt 
law was under consideration, if he were to propose, be- 
fore he acted, to obtain the consent of one or more of 
the states ? And yet it would be as rational as in the pre- 
sent case, supposing you have the authority, to require 
the consent of Missouri to give it effect. 

But the piinclpal feature in a legislative act is, that it 






16 



% in the power of our successors to change it ; here, oi. 
the contrary, you seek to make the regulation immortal. 
The constitution itself contains a principle of alteration, 
so as to adapt itself to the progress of human affairs, and 
yet you place a legislative act beyond all human pow- 
er of change or modification. I will forbear any further 
remarks on this branch of the subject, and proceed in 
tlie order I proposed. I will now enquire, whether, by 
treaty, we are not restrained from restricting Missouri .' 
By the third clause of the treaty, by which we acquired 
this country, the inhabitants are to be incorporated, &c. 
I consider it not of moment to enquire, whether their 
admission, according to the principles of the federal con- 
stitution, relates to the time or the terms of such admis- 
sion, because they are, when admitted, to enjoy all the 
rights, privileges, and immunities, of American citizens. 
An attempt has been made to discriminate between fe- 
deral and state rights, in a celebrated tract denominated, 
« the substance of two speeches," &c. For my part, I 
have been utterly unable to comprehend the meaning of 
the author. Does he mean to assert that there may be one 
or more citizens entitled to federal privileges, and not 
to state privileges? On the converse, to me it has al- 
ways appeared as not admitting of a question, that these 
were indissokibly united in an American citizen. A citi- 
zen of the United States must be a citiaen of some one 
of the states, and, as such, entitled to every right or privi- 
lege secured by the federal or state government. If 
there be any right pertaining to citizens of the United 
States, it is that of fashioning their government accor- 
ding to their own will and pleasure. This right was, 
therefore, secured by compact to the inhabitants of the 
territory in question, and any attempt to impair or a- 
brige it, is in violation of that treaty. In the same tract 
it is said, slaves ai-e not property ; the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, (Mr. Otis) frankly admits, that this is an 
unwarrantable assertion, and such must be the award of 
all mankind. Did not both the contracting parties recog- 
nize slaves as property? Were they not known to abound 
in the territory ceded, and constituting the largest 
proportion of the property of the people ? Is it consis- 
tent with reason to suppose that, when such care was 
taken to secure the people of the territory in the undis- 
turbed enjoyment of their property, the principal part 
was intended to be excluded ? It is mortifying to 
liave to contend with such a shadow. The whole terri- 
tory ceded was to be admitted into the union. The 
letter of the treaty required, that it should have been ad- 
mitted as a whole. You thought proper to divide it ; 
but you suffered theLouisiana part to come in without res. 



// 



17 

triction, in this regard. Upon what principle can you re- 
concile with good faith the distinction you now set up 
between Missouri and Louisiana ? 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Otis,) advan- 
ces the proposition, that,were this a conquered country, ) 
Congress might impose what terms they pleased — one, / 
instead of two Senators ; and, in short, whatever modi- / 
fication it pleased. As this is a question which for the | 
present may be said, in law language, to be coram non^ 
judice,, and as we have our hands full without it, I shall 
not discuss it. I shall dismiss it by denying its truth, and 
declaring that it is essential, in all cases, no matter by 
what method the territory may be acquired, whenever it 
becomes incorporated into the Union, it must be, in the 
language of all our precedents, on an equal footing with 
the original states, in all respects whatsoever. It is asked, 
who are the parties to the treaty, and who is there to 
punish its infraction ? Why propound this question ? 
The honor of the American people is the guaranty of its 
faithful execution. Our own brethren have become in- 
terested in its execution ; for they have mingled with 
the original inhabitants : they are entitled to the most 
liberal interpretation of the treaty, as well on the score 
of national law as the principles of justice and a liberal 
and enUghtened policy. The gentleman from Massachu- 
setts, in illustrating his views of the powers of Congress 
on this subject, has enquired, whether Congress could 
not exclude a religious sect from inhabiting the intended 
state, the principles of whose faith were unfriendly to 
population ; an example of which he furnished in the 
shaking quakers? Whatever else may be said of this 
view, ii will at least be entitled to the credit of candor. 
It, without disguise, displays the undefinable and uncon- 
stitutional power now asserted ; it assumes that Congress 
has a right to regulate their whole internal polity — for, 
if their religion and their connexion by matrimony are 
just subjects of Congressional authority, what subject of 
social regulation would lie beyond the reach of their 
control ? 

Lest I weary you, sir, I will now proceed to the last 
branch of this^interesting subject, which I proposed to 
discuss : Is it expedient or just ? 

The first objection that presents itself is its immea- 
surable injustice. By whom was the country acquired? 
By the common treasure of every part of the Union, and 
by the exclusive counsels of that portion which you seek 
to interdict by your measure. Yes, sir, I say the exclu- 
sive counsels. The opposition which was made to the 
treaty by which we acquired it, is too recent and too no- 
torious to require proof, Nay, sir, so inveterate is the 
2* 



13 

opposition, that we have a portion of its leaven mingled 
with the present discussion. The gentleman from Rhode 
Island has told us that we acquired it by treaty w ith a 
man who has become a private gentleman, and who had 
no title himself. A country thus acquired, of boundless 
extent, is to be shut against us. Were our opponents 
not under the influence of an insatiable ambition, they 
would content themselves with the enjoyment of a large 
and disproportionate share of this country, to which they 
would exclusively succeed, independently of any legal 
regulation on this subject. This is too obvious to be de- 
nied, when we take as our guide the history of our own 
country, which furnishes indubitable proof that slaves, to 
any considerable number, are never seen beyond a given 
parallel of latitude. When yeu cast your eye on the map 
of the country in question, it is palpable that much the 
largest portion would never be occupied by a slave. Why 
are they not content with this great natural advantage ? 
Can you bring your minds to believe that we shall sit 
quietly under this act of iniquity, as insulting as it is in- 
jurious ? Sir, no portion of the United States has been 
more loyal than the South. Amid all the vicissitudes of 
party and the violence of faction — in peace and in war — 
in good and in evil report, we have respected the laws, 
and rallied around the constitution and the Union. To 
the Union we have looked, as the ark of our salvation and 
the resting place of our hopes. Is this your reward for 
our loyalty ? Sir, there is a point where submission be- 
comes a crime, and resistance a virtue. In despotic 
countries even the despot is obliged to keep some terms 
with his subjects : in free states you more readily arrive 
at the point to which I allude. Beware how you touch 
it, in regard to the South ! Our people are as brave as 
they are loyal. They can endure any thi)ig but insult. 
The moment you pass the Rubicon, they will redeem 
their much abused character ; they will throw back 
upon you your insolence and your aggresion. But, let us 
suppose they will quietly submit to the wrongs you in- 
iiict, what must be their feelings friendly to Union — to 
that harmony so essential to our common prosperity ? 
What is the foundation of our connection ? The Federal 
compact. He must, indeed, be profoundly ignorant of 
human nature, if he suppose the Union reposes on such 
a foundation. No, sir, it is a common interest, and those 
kind and affectionate sentiments which the preservation 
by a parental government of that interest generates, that 
form its prop and security. Withdraw these, you may 
preserve the form, but the vital part is gone. To what 
end do you encounter this great risk? To exclude slavery 
from Missouri ? That cannot be your object. You have 



19 

slaves there already. These, you say, you do not mean 
to touch. The principle, then, is given up : the stock 
they have already there will multiply and fill the land. 

But we are gravely told, and upon it aU the changeshavo 
been rung to excite the prejudices of the non-slave hold- 
ing states, that the political influence resulting from the 
slaves which will be carried to this country is the prin- 
cipal ground of objection to Missouri's coming in without 
restriction. You reduce, say they, the white man to 
an equality with the slave. What sophistry is this ! Will 
not the slave have the same influence in Georgia or Vir- 
ginia as in Missouri ? His removal to the latter state is 
in no way to increase it. But they will, we are told, 
multiply faster in Missouri than in the old states. Mark 
the dilemma in which gentlemen are placed: at one time 
they weep over the condition of the slave ; their tender 
souls are overflowing with kindness and compassion to 
their sufferings. To ameliorate their condition is their 
professed object. What course do they pursue to ac- 
complish it ? To pen them up, as my honorable friend 
from North Carolina has justly remarked, and cut them 
off" from those benefits which await tliem in a new and 
fertile country ; the enjoyment of which produces that 
increase they so much affect to dread. Let us hear no 
more of humanity ; it is profaning the term. Their ob- 
ject is power. They assume the mask of humanity for 
the purpose of seducing tender consciences, and they, 
as far as their policy can effect it, devote the very beings 
whose welfare they pretend to urge as a reason for the 
measure of which we so justly complain. Yes • human- 
ity is their motto. The interest, the peace, the happi- 
ness of the whites, form with them the dust of the ba- 
lance ; their affections are alive only to the condition of 
the slave. They speak of their measures with great de- 
liberation, and invite us to be calm. They are afar off 
while this new drama is performing. Turn out comedy 
or tragedy, they are equally unaffected. On the contra- 
ry, we are to be involved in the catastrophe. It is not 
left to us to stand aloof as mere spectators. We shall 
have to act a part. We may lese, but cannot gain. We 
furnish the stakes ; and they are nothing less than the 
vital interests of our country. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Otis) has been edifying in his sug- 
gestions as to what we are to fear from St. Domingo, 
unless we adopt his counsels. The mention of St. Do- 
mingo calls up a train of unpleasant recollections. Its 
history is replete with instructive lessons upon this sub- 
ject. Let us alone, and we have nothing to fear. It is 
your pretended solicitude for our welfare that constitutes 
our dang-er. It is the doctor, and not the disease, we 



£0 

dread. Yes, sir, the pseudo friends of humanity, in 
Frauce, far beyond the reach of the effects of their own 
poUcy, in the spirit of fanaticism issued the celebrated 
decree that involved the fate of that devoted island. Its 
caption was " liberty and equality." It no sooner reached 
its object than the bands of society were dissolved. 
MoMsters stalked over the face of this wretched country, 
and their footsteps were every where traced by confla- 
g-ratioR, and rapine, and murder, and lust, and all the 
unutterable horrors which the most ferocious passions, 
coupled with unbridled power, could inflict. The 
few wretched survivors, who fled before the fury of the 
storm, carried to every part of Christendom their tale of 
suffering" and of woe, which, by its irresistible pathos, 
drew tears of pity from every eye. But, where or when 
has it been known that fanaticism has paused to reflect 
on consequences? Experience, the lessons of prudence 
and of caution, are presented to it in vain. But, sir, let 
us analyze this argument of the gentleman from Massa. 
chusetts, if, indeed, argument it may be called. If, says 
he, you extend slavery to Missouri, the emissaries of St. 
Domingo will penetrate this interior region, and preach 
the doctrines of insurrection. Indeed ! If, then, ac- 
cording to the logic of this gentleman, the slaves be re- 
tained in the Atlantic states, to wliich the access is the 
most easy, and swell to a disproportionate number, we 
have nothing to apprehend; but, if removed' to the inte- 
rior, and so diffused as to be entirely out-numbered by 
the white population, then, and not till then, are we in 
danger. Can any thing be necessary to refute a propo- 
aition, when to state it is to destroy it ? 

But, gentlemen defend the course they pursue, on the 
ground of charity and benevolence to this unfortunate 
species of population. Charity, sir, in its just sense, is 
one of the first of virtues ; it bears upon its face the im- 
press of its celestial birth ; it prompts the man, at the 
expanse of his own comforts, to give food to the hungry 
and clothing to the naked. If his scanty means deny him 
this privilege, he acts the good Samaritan — hours balm 
in the wound, and binds up the broken heart. His re- 
ward is ample here and hereafter. Here, in the uplifted 
and thankful eye of wretchedness relieved; there, it is 
a ministering angel at the throne of eternal justice. But 
that charity which seeks to gratify itself at the expense 
of another ; which subjects the actor to no sacrifice, to 
no danger, is mere hypocrisy— 'tis the reluctant homage 
which vice pays to virtue. In which predicament my op- 
ponents stand ! It is my property they seek to take ; it 
is my peace, my sNfety, my happiness, that are put to 
hazard. I exempt the gentleman from Massachusetts 



21 

{Mr. Otis) from any part of these allusions : he has frank- 
ly told us that he is actuated by no benevolent consider- 
ation ; he justifies his course on the score of policy. 

We are «ontiaually reproached with having on our 
side every advantage from the union ; that we have con- 
trived to gain an unjust portion of power through our 
slaves, and have given in return no equivalent. Let us 
analyze this charge, and test its justness. According to 
the principles of those who hold all men equal, it is we 
who have made the sacrifice, rather than gained an ad- 
vantage, in the ratio of representation, as it regards our 
slaves. In submitting to the deduction of two-fifths of 
this species of population, we have surrendered precisely 
that proportion of our just claims. Independent sove- 
reignties, entering into federal association, agree that 
their voice in the union shall depend on their relative 
numbers. What right has one of the parties to enquire 
into the condition of any portion of the inhabitants of 
another ? That is an affair exclusively belonging to the 
contracting sovereign. In the spirit of compromise, hown 
ever, the sacrifice was submitted to. Gentlemen say 
they do not mean to disturb it. Why harp continually 
upon it ? Is it to instil incurable hostilities into the body 
politic ; to array one portion of the United States against 
another? The parties heretofore existing in the United 
States, formidable as they were, especially at one time, 
lost all capacity for mischief by being broken up in frag- 
ments, Each state, each neighborhood, was more or 
less divided ; and thereby the force and effect of their 
violence was rendered comparatively harmless. Such 
will not be the case when you divide by latitudes. In 
their collisions, the Union will shake to its foundations. 
The gentleman from New Jersey, on another subject, 
expressed a partiality for parties ; their existence he sup- 
poses essential to the health of the political body. Be- 
ing myself fond of calm, I am willing to dispense with 
them altogether. His views might possibly be correct, 
could you regulate its extent as does the doctor his means 
by drachms and scruples. But I fear, sir, if I am not 
greatly deceived by the signs of the times, that this gen- 
tleman will have to acknowledge, by melancholy expe- 
rience, that his remedy has of itself become a dreadful 
disease. But, sir, I have wandered from the point, which 
is — that we have an advantage for which we have given 
no equivalent. No. Take it foi' granted, however, that 
it is a favor, (our ratio of representation,) and not a sa- 
crifice. Do we not pay in soUd bullion for it ? Is not 
taxation directly in proportion to our representation?- 
But is this all ? What have we not done for the navi- 
gating interest, and for the manufactures of our eastern 



.32 

brethren ? Three years »ast, at the suggestion of tlie 
latter, did we not unanimously pass a law, in conformity 
to tlieir wishes, which interdicted the intercourse be- 
jtween this country and the British West India Islands in 
.«|ritisli ships, with a view to the encouragement of the 
sliipping interest of the East ? Have we not also passed a 
navigation act, at their instance ; and, in short, have we 
not done whatever we have been requested to do which 
could lead to their advantage in this regard P Had the 
South been influenced only by the sordid consideration 
of their own interest, they would have been content to 
employ the cheapest carriers, whether alien or domestic. 
They were influenced by a more ns^gnanimous policy. 
We held our brothers of the East as ourselves, and, in 

« promoting their pardcular interest, at our immediate 
sacrifice, we looked at the subject in a national point of 
view only. And, although a continual clamor has been 
;'/ kept up against us upon the subject of manufactures, yet 
\ the laws which have been passed for their encourage- 
ment indicate the very liberal fdehngsof the South upon 
this subject, not to say an extravagant partiality. In the 
opposition w-hich has taken place to the unreasonable 
demands (or, at least, so esteemed by many) made by 
the manufacturing interest, no hostility to the North or 
East mingles therewith j it results from a conviction tliat 
a system, which can be sustained only by taxing extrava- 
gantly the productive labor of the country, cannot be 
founded in a proper regard to the suggestions of true 
political economy. 

We are asked, v/hy has Virginia changed her policy 
relative to slavery ? That the sentiments of our most dis- 
tinguished men thirty years past entirely corresponded 
with the course which the friends of restriction now ad- 
vocate ; that Mr. Jefferson has delineated a gloomy pic- 
ture of the baneful effects of slavery;* and that the Vir- 
ginia delegation, one of whom was the late President of 
the United States, voted for the restriction on the north- 
western territory. When it is recollected that the Notes 
of Mr. Jelferson were written during the progress of the 
Revolution, the mind operated upoH by its incidents, as 
novel as stupendous, it is no matter of surprise that the 
writer, who was performing so distinguished a part, 
should have imbibed a large portion of that enthusiasm 
which such an occasion was so well calculated to produce. 
With the eye of benevolence, surveying the condition 
of mankind, and a holy zeal for the amelioration of their 
condition, he gave vent to his feeUngs in the effusion to 

* Mr. King, in a speech subsequently delivered, stated that 
Mr. Jeflei-sou fii-st suggested the restrictiuu. 



23 

which our attention has been called. It is palpable these 
are the illusions of fancy. Sad reality has since taught 
him, as his example shows, that the evil, over vv^hich he 
wept, is incurable by human means. By which will you 
be influenced, the undisciplined effusions of a benevolent 
heart, or the sober suggestions of cool dehberations, and 
ripened judgment ? As to the consent of the Virginia dele- 
gation to the restriction in question — whetherthe result of 
a disposition to restrain the slave trade indirectly,or thein- 
fluence of that enthusiasm to which I have just alluded ; 
or, as is said by some, a political measure to counteract 
certain schemes then going on,whose object was, accord- 
ing to the rumor of the day, a severance of the Union, 
it is now not important to decide. We have witnessed 
its eflTects. What might have been speculation before, is 
now matter of experience. The Uberality of Virginia, 
or, as the result may prove, her folly, which submitted 
to, or, if you will, proposed this measure, has eventuated 
5n effects which speak a mon\tory lesson. How is the 
representation from this quarter, on the present question? 
Virginia is constrained to cry out. And you, too, my chil- 
dren ! 1 ppeal to the Senators from that quarter— to 
their filial affection, and conjure them, by the kindness 
we have shown them, to arrest the unfeeUng injustice 
meditated against us. Did we not give you the land 
which now constitutes your home, and which you liken, 
in your own language, to a Paradise ? Did we not pro- 
tect you in your infancy ? Did we not arrest the poHcy 
of the east, which sought to fetter you<- mighty river, for 
no matter what purpose, whether disunion or to repress 
your growth. Did we not place you by our side in this 
and the other hall, and impart to you the high privileges 
of self government ? You have now become powerful : 
will you, in the first moment we have ever solicited your 
aid, abandon us and go over to the enemy ? Will you 
surrender yourselves to the seductive influence of an en- 
vious step-mother, who sought to strangle you in your 
infancy ? Dare you lift your parricidal hand against your 
natural parent ? [n the face of the most unpromising 
symptoms, I will continue to hope better things. 

We have heard much of the moral and political effects 
of slavery. Instead of the picture furnished by theorists 
and enthusiasts on this subject, let us consult the testi- 
mony of history from the first to the present a^e. In the 
master states of antiquity, Greece and Rome, it existed 
in Its worst form. A-id, yet, such was the march of the 
human mind, in these distinguislied republics, in all that 
was ennobling in morals and science, that, it continued 
to shme through the long eclipse of interposing dark- 
ness. And, in the modern world, the lamps of science 



24 

and of liberty were lighted up from its yet unexpired 
f embers. I will not pretend to retouch the picture deli- 
neated by the masterly hand of my distinguished friend 
from Maryland. His glowing and subUme eloquence, the 
exclusive companion of superior genius, lifted the cur- 
tain which separates us from past ages, and caused to 
pass in review the heroes of Marathon, Salamis and 
Thermopylze — splendid achievements, that lose nothing 
in comparison with all that has since intervened. If you 
descend to modern times, the result of experience in our 
own country is no less opposed to the suggestions of 
theory. I will not enter into the invidious task of con- 
trasting the south with the north. How disastrous must 
be that question, whose discussion permits a member of 
this bodyjin recounting the splendid monuments of Ame- 
rican skill and bravery, to content himself with naming 
Bunker's Hill, Bennington and Saratoga ! Could not the 
gentleman from New-H'impshire permit his national feel- 
ing to survive so long, as to have recounted the Cowpens 
— King's Mountain, Guilford, Eutaw, Yorlc, and finally 
the victory of New-Orleans, whose memory will live co- 
extensively with the flood on whose margin it was a- 
chieved ? Why this invidious distinction .' Does the ho- 
norable gentleman imagine, 1 take a less interest in in- 
dulging my pltasing recollection of the prowess of my 
country in the first, than m the last ? No, they were my 
countrymen — the fame they acquired was a common 
stock ; my portion of the inheritage I will not surrender. 

Let it not however be supposed, that in the abstract I 
2iD advocating slavery ? Like all other human tilings, it is 
mixed with good and evil — the latter, no doubt, prepon- 
derating. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Mellen) tells 
us, he is legislating for after ages. His v ew disdains the 
limited horizon of the present. Poor arrogant man, not 
content to act well his part in the little span assigned him 
by his creator, he builds his mole-hill, and challenges 
immortaUty for his labors ! A few revolving years, they 
are erased with the same facility, as are the characters 
by the flood, on whose sandy margin they have been in- 
scribed. Tell me at what pure fountain of knowledge, 
have you drank in the holy inspiration, which enables 
you to penetrate the dark cloud which hangs en the fu- 
ture,and to adapt your counsels to the endless vicissitudes 
of human affairs ? Satisfy me on this, before I surrender 
present happiness. I fear you have commenced this dis- 
tant voyage under the most unhallowed auspices. You 
violate tlie constitution ; you trample under feet the 
plighted faith of the nation; you do an immeasurable act 
of injustice to one half the nation ; you lay the founda- 



25 

tion of incurable hatred ; and all this, for consequences 
which none can see, but that Providence in whose hands 
is the destiny of nations. Sir, reflections of this kind 
call up a fearful subject of contemplation. Your govern- 
ment, upon its present scale, is, as yet, but an experiment. 
While the people are virtuous, it may equal all our fond 
hopes and anticipations : but, when it shall reach from 
ocean to ocean, become populated to excess, and poverty 
and vice shall have shed their baneful influence ; when 
materials of this kind shall be subjected to the intrigues 
of the wicked and ambitious ; who, judging even from 
the present time, is sanguine enough to hope that we a- 
lone are to be exempt from the calamities, to which man 
has been born heir. Who can pretend to predict, that 
the present order of things will be able to ride out the 
storm? And if, conforming to all human things, we too, 
shall experience adversity : if this last hope of afllicted 
humanity shall, as the precursor of its final doom, be 
rent in twain ; what then will be the fruits of your 
pohcy ? On this side the Mississippi, a black population: 
on the other, a white. The latter, you tell us, is feeble, 
inadequate to its own defence, we present only a temp- 
tation to conquest. Instead of presenting a rampart, you 
have surrendered us, by your policy,an unresisting prey to 
our now hostile neighbors. It may perhaps be consistent 
with retributive justice,that, our country overrun, you in 
turn may severely feel the terrible eff'ects of your pre- 
sent injustice. Let me conjure the gentleman to return 
from his distant voyage, and unite with us in consulting 
the happiness of the present generation. Whether sla- 
very was ordained by God himself, in a particular reve- 
lation to his chosen people, or whether it be merely per- 
mitted as a part of that moral evil, which seems to be the 
inevitable portion of man, are questions I will not ap- 
proach: I leave them to the casuists and the divines. It 
is sufficient for us, as statesmen, to know that it has ex- 
isted from the earhest ages of the world, and, that to us 
has been assigned such a portion, as, in reference to their 
number and the various considerations resuking from a 
changeof their condition, no remedy, even plausible, has 
been suggested ; though wisdom and benevolence unit- 
ed have unceasingly brooded over the subject. 

However dark and inscrutable may be the ways of Hea- 
ven, who is he that arrogantly presumes to arraign them ? 
The same mighty power that planted the greater and the 
lesser luminary in the IIeavcn3,permits on earth the bonds- 
man and the free. To tliat Providence, as men and chris- 
tians, let us bow. If it be consistent M'ith His will, in tlie 
fullness of time, to break the fetter of the slave, he will 
raise up some Moses to be their deliverer. To hira 
S 



26 

commission will be given to lead them up out of the land 
of bondage. At his approach, seas will subside, and moun- 
tains disappear. When this revelation shall be made, 
& the jubilee of emancipation be proclaimed, philanthro- 
py will hft its voice to swell the joyful note, which, sweep- 
ing the continent and the isles of the new world, and 
resounding through the old, shall cause the oppressor to 
let go his prey, the dungeon to surrender its victim, and 
give emancipation to the slave. Till then, let us draw 
consolation from the reflection that, however incompre- 
hensible this dispensation may be to us, it is a link in that 
great concatenation which is permitted by Omnipotent 
power and goodness, and must issue in universal good. 

I will not weary the patience of the Senate by detaining 
them any longer on this subject. It is the speaker, and 
not the theme, that is exhausted. However threatening 
the political horizon may now appear, I will not suffer 
myself easily to be cast down. No, sir, when I reflect 
upon our ancestors, who, flying oppression, braved a 
waste of waters, bringing with them nothing but tlieir 
household gods and an unextinguishable thirst for free- 
dom, taking root on a barbarous shore, growing up with a 
rapidity unexampled in the annals of mankind — uniting 
against the attempts of tyranny, and consummatmg the 
glorious Revolution : when I reflect on the spirit of con- 
cession and brotherly love in the formation of the con- 
stitution ; and when I finally contemplate the glory and 
happiness it has produced, I will not now distrust that 
Providence which has been pleased to dispense to us so 
many & such distinguished blessings.I will not permit my- 
seL^" to beUeve that this mighty scheme of political salva- 
tion, in which all nations are interested, will pass away 
like the grass of the field. 1 will rather continue to in- 
dulge the hope, that we shall remain united and free ; 
that we shall advance to that height of prosperity when 
all nations shall resort to us, whence to draw the 
oracles of politicAl wisdom and the sublime truths of civil 
and religious liberty. That such may be oui-fate is the 
prayer 1 will unceasingly address to the Great Difipo?<e' 
of all human events. 



\0 



SPEECH 



\J - 



OF VIRGINIA, 

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OP H£PRESENTATIVES OF THE 
UNITED STATES, FEBHUAKY 10, 1820, 

Ou the following amendment proposed by Mr. Taylor, of N". V. 
to the Bill authorising the people of Missomi to form a Con- 
stitution : 
Section four, line twenty-five, after the word " States^"' insert 
the following; " And shall ordain and establish, that there shall 
be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said state 
otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party 
shall have been duly convicted : Provided always. That any 
person escaping into the same, from whom labor or sei'vice is 
lawfully claimed in any other state, such fugitive may be law- 
fully reclaimed, and co- veyed to the person claiming his or her 
labor or service, as aforesaid ; ^jul, provided, also, That the 
eaid provision shall not be construed to alter the condition or 
civil x'ights of any person now held to service or labor in the said 
territory.'* ' 



Mr. Chairman : In rising- to address you at this time, 
I feel that I labor under great disadvantages ; I am about 
to embark in the discussion of a subject, which has alrea- 
dy been greatly exhausted ; I am about to do this too, 
at a period of the day, vi^hen talents of a higher order 
than I can pretend to, would scarcely command atten- 
tion ; these circumstances are, of themselves, sufficient- 
ly discouraging ; but the greatest difficulty of my situa- 
tion, consists in the frame of mind, in which I feat the 
committee have been left, by the closing remarks of the 
member from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Sergeant) who has 
just resumed his seat : he made such persu.'tsive appeals 
to their feelings ; he painted in such "glowing colors of 
pathetic eloquence, the horrors of slavery in general, 
and particularly the agonizing scenes of husbands sepa-" 
rated from wives, & parents torn from cliildren; that I fear 
the agitations of an excited sensibility, will be uufriendh 
1 



to the dispassionate investigation and correct decision 
of this great question. 

If, sir, the cause which T have risen to defend, requir- 
ed talents, like those which I have just described; ta- 
lents which, by exciting the sympathies of the heart, 
cause the hearers to forget the allegiance due to the 
judgment, then, indeed, I should abandon the unequal, 
the hopeless contest, in which I should find myself en- 
gaged: but the duty which devolves on me, is of a differ- 
ent kind — it is to endeavor, as far as I can, to alJay the tu- 
mult of feeling, which has just been excited, and then, in 
the language of plain truth, to attempt to convince your 
minds, of the error, of the gentleman's reasoning. 

Let me, then, tell the gentleman, that the picture 
which he has drawn of the suffering, incident to domes- 
tic slavery in the south, is too strong ; that he has shad- 
edit too deeply, with the coloring of his own imagination; 
that, though we do keep the yoke of servitude, upon the 
necks of our fellow men, yet our humanity has lighten- 
ed its pressure ; that, though slavery, disguise it as you 
will, is still a bitter draught, yet, the same humanity has 
lessened the bitterness of this draught, by the infusion 
into it, of many'drops of consolation ; that, in fine, such 
has been the continually increasing melioration, in the 
condition of that people amongst us, that they now, in 
general, experience the utmost degree of indulgence, 
which is compatible with the relation, of master and 
slave. 

But, sir, I find that I am digressing from the subject, 
which I rose to discuss. Are we now called to decide, 
as an abstract question, whether slavery is, or is not justi- 
fiable? No, sir, that question had been long settled, be- 
fore the formation of our constitution ; slavery existed 
in many of the states at that period ; its existence and 
its continuance were recognized hy that instrument ; the 
states surrendered to the federal government, no power 
over the subject, except after a given period, to prohibit 
the importation of slaves from abroad. I tell, gentlemen, 
then, that tliis is neither the time nor the occasion, for 
the discussion of the abstract justice, or injustice, of slave- 
ry; if we were called upon, in our respective state legisla- 
tures, to decide upon its contin\iance or abolition; or if 
we were now in convention, for the purpose of forming a 
new federal constitution ; in cither of these cases, their 
arguments of that kind, would have some application. 
But who are we, and what are our functions? We are 
the creatures of tlie constitution, not its creators ; we 
are called here to execute, not to make one. Let gentle- 
men, then, remember, that it is not sufficient for them to 
shew tliat slavery cannot be justified in itself; that it is. 



if you please, a moral and political evil ; they will yet 
fail to maintain theii* ground, unless they can also shew 
that the constitution gives us power over it. An 
example or two, will furnish a better illustration of my 
idea, than general reasoning. Luxury is considered a 
great political evil in any state, but particularly in 
a government like ours, whose stabihty depends, upon 
the virtue of the people. Let us suppose that this poli- 
tical malady, prevailed in an extreme degree in any owe, 
or all of the states of this Union. Is there a member of 
this committee, who will undertake to say, that we could 
attempt to cure the evil, by the passage of sumptuary 
laws ? Again, sir, consider all those violations of morality 
and religion, which are the subjects of the criminal ju- 
risprudence of the several states; they are all moral and po- 
litical evils; and yet no member of this committee will ven- 
ture to affirm, that we can attempt to arrest them by our 
legislation ; and why, sir ? For the obvious reason that, 
though they are evils, and of a kind too, which may vital- 
ly affect the stability and prosperity of the whole body 
politic, yet they are the subjects of state legislation, over 
which no power has been transferred to us by the con- 
stitution. Sir, as well might the British Parliament at- 
tempt to exercise its authority, in the correction of what 
it thought to be moral or po'itical evil, in the several 
states ; because, as it respects any subject, over which 
the constitution has not given us power, we are as alien 
a government, in relation to the states, as is the British 



government. 



I have made these remarks, for the purpose of disem- 
barrassing this question of extraneous difficulty; of shew- 
ing what the question is not, that we may better under- 
stand what it is. The question is not, then, whether 
slavery is in itself an evil, but whether, supposing it to 
be such, we have the power to correct it, in relation to 
Missouri ? The committee will perceive, from my mode 
of stating the question, that T mean to discard from my 
consideration the enquiry into the humanity and expe- 
diency of the proposed restriction ; I do thisbecause am- 
ple justice has already been done by abler advocates than 
ryujself, to those views of the subject ; and because, too, 
I can conceive no argument so strong, to prove the inex- 
pediency of the measure, as will result from proving, as 
I hope I shall be able to do, that we have not the power 
to impose it. Let gentlemen reconcile it, if they can, with 
their ideas of humanity, to prevent an increase of slaves, 
by denying to them an increase of comforts ; let them, if 
they can, reconcile it with their ideas of justice or expe- 
diency, to keep this vast country uncontaminated with 
slaves, for mllUons of freemen yet unborn, at the hazard 



4 

of the happiness and safety of raiU'ons now existing ; if, 
upon these points, they differ with me in opinion, they 
will at least, agree in this proposition ; that, under no 
circumstances, ought we to attempt to do that, which we 
have not power to do. That we have no power, to im- 
pose this restriction, I shall attempt to prove, by shew- 
ing, that it would be in direct violation of the constitu- 
tion, and of the treaty of cession frnm France, of 1803, 
Before, however, I enter particularly into the reasoning 
in support of the view, which I have just mentioned, I 
beg leave to notice some remarks, of the member from 
Pennsylvania, in relation to the construction of the con- 
stitution. He told us, that there was an increasing libe- 
rality in this respect; and that, particularly, in relation to 
any measure of a beneficent character, he looked into 
that instrument, with a desire to find the necessary pow- 
er : Yes, sir, there is indeed liberality, and in an increas- 
ing degree ; and I must be permitted tu say, that we are 
extremely apt to think that we find that, which we seek 
with a desire to find. The gentleman referred to some 
examples of this hbei-al spirit. I candidly own to you, 
sir, that I am filled with the most serious apprehensions, 
at the progress which we have already made, and which 
we seem disposed yet to make, in this respect; let us 
for a moment mark it : At one tim? a National Bank is 
proposed to be established ; it is discovered that this 
will facihtate the collection of the public revenue; and 
hence, a power is derived to establish it, although a pro- 
position was made in the convention, to give the power 
of granting charters of incorporation, which did not 
pass :* at another time a great system of internal im- 
provement is proposed; it is recommended by its benefi- 
cence, in annihilating space, and bringing nigher togeth- 
er the extremities of the republic, by roads and canals ; 
and from the power to declare war, is derived a power 
to establish military roads, although one of the schemes 
of government, proposed in convention, contained a pro- 
position to establish military, as well as /josnoads, which 
prevailed only so far as relates to the latter.f Thus, 
sir, we have been continually advancing, step by step, in 
the enlarp^ement of the rule of construction, and every 
previous decision, becomes a precedent in aid of that, 
which next follows. Whether we have yet arrived, at 
the point marked by the limits of the constitution, it 
seems to be impossible to say ; for, as we advance, those 
limits, like our horizon, seem to recede ; so that whate- 
ver step we have last taken, marks not the utmost verge 
of our power, but onl/ the point to which construction, 

*See Journal of Federal Convention, page 260. 
t Ibid. p. 75. 



up to that time, has carried us. By the aid of construc- 
tion, then, we find ourselves in possession of very large 
powers, and defined by very unsettled boundaries, in re- 
lation to the old states ; if, in addition to this, we assume 
the power now claimed by gentlemen in relation to new 
states, which I shall attempt to shew is entirely without 
boundary at all, then, indeed, I shall begin to think that 
parchment delineations of power are little else than 
iorm ; that mankind have no hgaments strong enough to 
bind the hands of their fellow men when in power. If 
the doctrine now contended for be true, let us not, as 
in other days we were wont to do, enquire what powers 
havt we, but what have ive not ? 

These remarks, have been called forth by those, which 
were made by the member, who preceded me ; I now 
beg leave to call your attention, to the very question be- 
fore us, and, I will endeavor to subject it, to the severest 
scrutiny, of which I am capable. Ihe bill before us pro* 
poses to authorize the people of Missouri, to form a con- 
stitution and state government ; an amendment is offer- 
ed to the bill, which requires of the proposed state, as a 
sine qua non, to its admission into the Union, that it 
should by a compact, irrevocable without the consent of 
Congress, make a provision, the effect ofvi^hich would 
be, to prevent the further introduction of slaves into that 
state, and to emancipate the children of all those now 
there ; and, the the question is, whether we have power 
to impose this condition, which the amendment proposes? 
The advocates of the amendment, contend that we have 
the power ; on our part, it is contended, that we have 
not. 

The question being thus precisely stated, I will re- 
mind gentlemen, at the threshold of the discussion, that 
they hold the affirmative; that, therefore, the burden of 
proof devolves on them ; I do not mention this, from any 
apprehension of the weakness of my position ; on the 
contrary, such is my confidence in its strength, that I 
feel I can with safety assume upon myself, the burden of 
proof, when it belongs to my opponents ; but, I wish it to 
be distinctly understood, that I shall consider this, as a 
gratuity on my part, and not an act of duty. 

Both the members from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hemphill, 
and Sergeant) have relied much, upon the ordinance of 
1787, the 6th article of which, forbids slavery in the north 
western territory, as shewing the power of the old Con- 
gress, in relation to this subject ; as this is anterior to the 
constitution, and as it may somewhat conduce to system, 
to observe a chronological order, I beg leave first to ex- 
amine the character of that act, and what influence it 

1 # 



6 

ought to have, upon this question. This celebrated act of 
the Old Congress, has been called an usurpation ; gentle- 
men have expressed their astonishment, at this epithet ; 
I am prepared, from the most unquestionable authority, 
to prove the charge, and for that purpose, I beg leave to 
read, from the 38th number vf the Federalist, the follow- 
ing extract : — "Congress, (that is the Old Congress) 
have undertaken to do more — they have proceeded to 
form new states ; to ereot temporary governments ; to 
appoint officers for them ; and to prescribe the condiiions 
on which such states shall be admitted into the confeder- 
acy. ^U this has- bien dmef and done ivithout the least 
color of constitu'io.ial authority" 'i hese, sir, are ihe 
words of a member, and, let me add, a distinguished mem- 
ber of the Federal Convention; one, who after he had 
contributed to the formation of the consutution, devoted 
eight years of hisHfe, to its actual administration. If, then, 
the Old Congress, in the enactment of that ordinance, 
acted without the least color of constitutional authority, 
it is obvious, that the act must be utterly void, as an act 
of legislation ; has it force in any other way ? Gentle- 
men, conscious of this vital defect, have, in effect, conced- 
ed it, by resting its authority, upon the footing of con- 
tract ; they say, that, after the cession by Virginia, and 
the enactment of that ordinance, it was submitted to Vir- 
ginia for her ratification, and that it was ratified. It has al- 
ready been shewn, by the Speaker, both from the resolu- 
tion of Congress and the act of the V^irginia legislature, 
that, it was an alteration in the number and dimensions 
of the states, to be carved out of that territory, which was 
alone submitted, and which, therefore, was alone intend- 
ed to be decided ; but, there are other insuperable ob- 
jections to this ordinance, considered upon the footing 
of a contract, having any influence, upon the present ques- 
tion. 

It has been correctly said, that, to make a valid con- 
tract, there must be two parties. Now, tho' Virginia 
should be considered as having been con.petent, yet, the 
Old Congress was not ; I have shewn you that they had 
not the least color of constitutional authority over the 
subject ; it follows, then, thai they were as litde compe- 
tent to contract, as to legislate in relation to it. But, a- 
gain, sir ; Supposing the Old Congress to have been a 
competent contracting party, it is conceded on the 
other side, that, considering the ordinance in the light 
of a contract, the assent of Virginia, was indispensa- 
ble to its validity. Now, sir, to make that at all analo- 
gous to the present case, it is necessary that France 
should give its assent, to the proposed restriction of sla- 



r 

very ; because France having been the power which ced- 
ed Louisiana, stands in the same relation to that country, 
as Virginia did to the north western territory. Sure- 
}y then, there can be no weight due to this ordinance, 
as a precedent, when we reflect, tliat it emanated from 
men, having no jurisdiction over the subject matter to 
which it relates; and tiiat, too, at a time anterior to the 
formation of our constitution, which is the only source of 
our power, and wiiich, 1 shall attempt to prove, clearly 
gives us none such as is contended for. 

One gentleman, from Pennsylvania,(Mr. Hemphill,) at- 
tempted to derive some aid to his argument, from the 
Journal of the Federal Convention ; he said, that, as the 
clause originally stood, it authorized Congress to ad- 
mit new states, upon the same footing with the ori- 
ginal states ; and as these words are not found in the 
existing constitution, he thence infers that, it was intend- 
ed to vest Congress, with a discretionary power as to 
conditions ; if the gentleman had examined the same 
clause, in its original shape, he would have found that it 
also contained this provision, " that Congress might make 
concUtions with the new states, as to the existing public 
debt ;'* Now, sir, the gentleman I am sure, would not 
be willing to extend the inference on which he rehes, 
to this part of the clause ; because, if he did, the conse- 
quence would be that, the new states would not be liable 
for their proportion of the pubhc debt ; the truth, is, that 
both sets of words were omitted for the same reason. 
That is, because they were both necessary consequences 
of the admission, and they were, therefore, supereroga- 
tory. Many other examples might be found by examin- 
ing the Journal, from which it w as evident that particu- 
lar expressions included in the first project of the consti- 
tution, were omitted in the existmg one, because they 
were necessarily embraced, in the remainder of the same 
clause, or were the unavoidable result, of the construc- 
tion of the whole instrument. This argument, then, is 
utterly untenable. 

I come now, sir, in the order of discussion, to the con- 
stitution itself; various provisions of that instrument have 
been relied upon, in support of the proposed measure ; 
and, here, sir, the first remark to be made is this :— That 
the friends of thisrestriction,not only trace this power up 
to different principles, but, to such as are utterly incom- 
patible with each other ; and in relation to which, there- 
fore, the assertion of one, is necessarily the refutation of 
the other ; some of the gentlemen say, that we are au- 
tliorized to impose the restriction, by virtue of our legis- 



8 ? 

lative power ; others say, we derive the authority from 
compact ; I said, that there was an incompatibiUty in their 
principles, and I will now endeavor to prove it. When 
we make a contract, we consult not our will only, but 
that of the other party also : and it is the concurrence of 
our wills, which can alone give being- to a contract ; but 
in legislation, our own will is the rule of our action ; 
voluntas stat pro ratione — we speak to command — we 
command to b? obeyed; were I disposed to give a very 
strong" example of the legislative style, I would quote the 
imperial edict, as given to us in the book of highest au- 
thority : " Caesar Augustus sent forth a decree, saying, 
all the world should be taxed." We do not, indeed, use 
such a lofty style of imperial dictation ; nor does the ex- 
tent of the civilized world, constitute the bounds of our 
dominion, as in the days of the second Cssar ; but our 
legislative power, within the lawful range of its author- 
ity, is just as unlimited, save only, that we are subject to 
the control, which the exercise of a sound discretion and 
our responsibility to our constituents, impose upon us. 
i repeat, then, that to attempt to maintain the legislative 
power, is to abandon the ground of com])act ; and e con- 
rerso, to attempt to maintain the principle of compact, is 
to abandon the legislative power ; because the one im- 
plies consent, as essential to its existence, whilst the other 
acts independently of all consent, in the execution of its 
own will. I will now, however, with the leave of the 
committee, proceed to examine the several provisions of 
the constitution, which have been relied on, in the course 
of the discussion, with a view to support the one, or the 
other, of these principles. Before 1 do this, however, I 
must make this apologetic remark to the committee, for 
referring to clauses, which have been so often quoted. 
That the advocates of the restriction, having to maintain 
their principles, have selected their own texts of the con- 
stitution, on which to comment ; that, as my argument 
consists of a counter commentary to theirs, I am con- 
Strained to refer to the same texts from necessity. 

The first which I shall examine, because it has been 
most relied on, is in these words : *' New states may be 
admitted by the Congress into this Union." Now, say 
gentlemen, this provision is permissive, not imperative. 
That as Congress may, so they may not, admit ; and as 
they may not admit, therefore they may, in their discre- 
tion, impose their own terms On my part, it is contended 
that the power of Congress is limited to the simple alterna- 
tive, of admitting or not admitting; that even this power is 
subject to the modification, thai they have not the moral 
right, to refuse admission to a territory, whose situation 
and circumstances fit it for admission. 



i would illustrate ray idea on this subject, by a refer- 
ence to the powers, of laying- taxes and borrowing mon- 
ey. We have the power to obtain, either by taxation or 
loan, millions of dollars, if the treasury were even full to 
overflowing- ; yet no man will say, that we have the mor- 
al right to do this, much less to menace a state or states, 
with the exercise of this power, unless it, or they, would 
agree to some condition, injurious to their rights. But 
let us return to the clause. What is to be admitted ? A 
state. Although much has been alread) said in relation 
to this word, I beg leave to add something more. The 
definition of the word state, in general, need not be re- 
sorted to, because it is to be defined here, in the sense m 
which it is used in the constitution. There is no rule of 
construction so universal, as it respects laws, treaties, or 
constitutions, as this, that the same word repeatedly oc- 
curring in the same instrument, shall receive the same 
interpretation. Thus, sir, no one will deny, when both 
the federal and state governments are forbidden, to pass 
bills of attainder, or ex post facto laws, that these terms 
mean the same thing, in each instance. Take another 
example, which comes nigher to the present question : 
Suppose, in the very clause now under consideration, it 
had, from abundant caution, been added, that the new 
states, upon their admission, should be entitled each to 
two Senators and their proper proportion of Representa- 
tives; no man would have doubted, but that the Senators 
and Representatives, must possess precisely the qualifi- 
cations prescribed, in a previous part of the constitution, 
to wit, a certain age, residence, and citizenship ; and so, 
sir, of any other term in the whole instrument. Construe 
the word state, then, like all the other words in the con- 
stitution, in the sense in which it is previously and repeat- 
edly used, and there would at once, be an end of the ques- 
tion. For, when a new state is to be admitted, it is just 
such a state, as is produced by the various provisions, of 
the constitution. 

But, again, sir, neto states are to be admitted. Now 
this word neta is clearly put in contradistinction to old; 
and this contradistinction, is what constitutes and defines 
the difference, and the only difference, which was in- 
tended to be expressed ; as naturally, as when we speak 
of a young man, we put him in contradistinction to an 
old one ; but with this difference only, we mean a natu- 
ral being, of the same powers and faculties, such as will, 
judgment, memory, &c. So, sir, when we speak of 7»ew, 
in opposition to oW states, we mean just such a political 
being, possessing the same political powers and faculties, 
distinguished only, by the circumstance of age. 
This assumption, that because we have a power to re^ 



10 

fuse admission, we therefore have a right to impose 
terms upon that admission, proceeds from the misappli- 
cation of a principle in itself perfectly true, but which has 
no sort of application to the present question. It is this, 
that he tvho gives^ has a right to prescribe the terms of 
the gift. This is entirely true, in relation to property 
which belong-s to ourselves, and which we have 
not only the power, but the moral right, to give or not, 
as we please ; but it is entirely untrue, if it be attempted 
to apply it to a case like the present, when we are act- 
ing not for ourselves, but as trustees for others ; not in 
relation to any thing which belongs to us, but in relation 
to the subject matter of that trust ; in that case, not we, 
but those whose agents we are, have the right to prescribe 
terms, as I shall endeavor to show, has been done by the 
constitution. To shew the fallacy of this doctrine, that 
because we may give, or withhold our assent, we may 
therefore impose our own terms, permit me ^o call your 
attention, to some analogous provisions of the constitution. 
Congress has power to give its consent or not, that a state 
may lay duties on imports. Suppose an application made 
for such consent, is there a member of the committee 
who would contend, that Congress had a right to give it, 
upon condition that the state should give some equivalent? 
For example, that it should agree in its turn, that its ex- 
ports should be taxed; no one, I am persuaded, will at- 
tempt to maintain this position. Again, sir. Congress 
may consent or not, that a state may keep troops in time 
of peace ; would they have a right to attach as a condi- 
tion to that consent, that the state should submit to the 
imposition of a direct tax, in a mode different from the 
ratio of representation ? No, sir, it will not be pretend- 
ed ; and yet there would be as much plausibility in both 
of these hypothetical cases, as can well be conceived in 
any case; because the conditions stated in both, consist 
in surrendering rights reserved to the states for their be- 
nefit; yet Congress could not attach such conditions ; the 
pathof duty would be plainly this : if the situation of the 
applying states were such, that the required consent 
ought not to be granted, then it would be wrong to grant 
it for any supposed equivalent ; if, on the contrary, cir- 
cumstances were such as to make the application a prop- 
er one, then it ought to be granted without equivalent. 
I could state other cases of a similar character ; these 
will be sufficient to shew, that it does not follow, because 
we have a power to refuse consent, therefore we may 
impose conditions on that consent, when granted. 

If we were to impwse this condition, we should com- 
mit a palpable > iolation, of that provision of the constitu- 
tion, which makes it our duty to guaranty to every state 



11 

in the Union, a republican form of government. A re- 
publican government, is one derived from the people to 
he governed by it, liable to be altered, reformed, or abol- 
ished by themselves. Yet we, whose sv/orn duty it is to 
guaranty to the people of Missouri, a government formed 
by themselves, are now about to declare, that in one im- 
portant particular, their constitution shall not be such as 
they desire, shall not be alterable according to their own 
will, but shall, in the first instance, be such as we choose 
it to be, and shall not afterwards be altered without our 
consent. Sir, the plain meaning of the constitution is 
this — its provisions were intended, not only for the states, 
which then existed, but for s ich as should thereafter ex- 
ist. As far as they then existed, they at once became 
parties to it ; and no man can doubt but that the new 
states since formed, had they then been in being, would 
have been received as parties to that family compact, 
and consequently upon the terms therein contained ; but 
those states, which did not then exist, could not become 
parties ; the original states, therefore, left this constitu- 
tion as a perpetual power of attorney, empowering us, as 
their agents, to receive new states into the Union; and 
the various provisions of that instrument, perpetually ac- 
company it, as the prescribed terms of such admission. If 
it were otherwise, if we were at liberty to impose what 
conditions we please upon the new states, our govern- 
ment would present this monstrous anomaly, that the ori- 
ginal states had provided a permanent constitution, as it 
respected themselves, alterable only by themselves, but 
as it respects new states, had in effect given to Congress, 
the power of making a constitution for them. 

Sir, there is a plain process of reasoning, which, it 
seems to me, will put to rest all difficulty about the rela- 
tion, in which new states stand to tlie old; and perhaps it 
is because it is plain that it is not observed. It will con- 
sist in propounding to the committee a series of ques- 
tions, all of which, 1 undertake to affirm, that every mem- 
ber must answer in the affirmative, and yet gentlemen 
will find themselves reduced to the dilemma, of answer- 
ing them negatively, or of giving up the proposed re- 
striction. It might perhaps be sufficient, to put one ge- 
neral question only: Do the various provisions of the 
constitution apply to the nerv, as well as to the old states? 
But the committee will pardon me for pursuing tliem in 
detail, because by that mode I think we shall arrive at 
such palpable conclusions that tlie mind cannot withhold 
its assent. I will now commence the catechetical mode 
of argument which I have just indicated: — Are the new 
states entitled t^O a representation in this house, and, if 
they be, is it in proportion to their federal numbers ? 



IS. 

Are they entitled to a representation in the Senate, and, 
if so, is it an equal representation ? Are they entitled to 
electors of President and Vice President, and, if so, is 
the number to be in the compound ratio of their Senators 
and Representatives ? Are they subject to the legisla- 
tive powers of Congress, such as that of layhig- taxes, 
&c. ? Are they entitled to the benefit of the exemptions 
in the constitution, such as the protection agamst a 
duty on exports? Are they subject to the various pro- 
hibitions in the 10th section of the 1st article, such as 
that no state shall coin money, &e. ? Are they entitled 
to the benefit of the provision, that the citizens of each 
State, shall be entitled to all the privil^g-tsand immunities 
of citizens in the sevt^ral states? Finally, do the 9th and 
lOi h articles of the amendments exttnd to them, espe- 
cially the 10th, which puts into tlie sl\ape of a constitu- 
tional declaration, what would have beei; a necessary rule 
of construciloa; namely. That the powers not delegated 
to the United Slates, nor prohibited to the slates, are 
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people ? 
There is oot, surely, a member of this committee who 
would venture to answer one of these questions negative- 
ly ; and yet, from an affirmative answer totiiem all, there 
results an inevitable conclusion, that this restriction can- 
not be imposed. I have assumed that it is impossible to 
say nay, to any one of these questions^ but,to make certain- 
ty more certain, let me exemplify in one, or two instances, 
corresponding to tliese questions. Can you give a new 
state three Senators, or can you pare them down to one? 
Can you release them from their iiabilit\ , to your legis- 
lative power, by stipulating, for example, that they should 
not be included, in the imposition of a direct tax ? ihese 
two cases, present examples, the first of a ri^ht acquired, 
the second of an obligatioii contracted, by coming" into 
the federal Union. Let me now put a case, in relation to 
the prohibitions, on the exercise of state sovereignty ; 
Can you authorize a new state, to coin money, or grant 
letters of marque and reprisal ? If every member of the 
committee must agree that you cannot do,any one of these 
thing-s, wliat, permit me to ask, is the reason ? Can the 
mind of man, conceive any other, but this great and obvi- 
ous principle, growing out of the constitution — that, com- 
ing into an association of states, bound to each other, by a 
mutual compact, the terms (jf that compact, necessarily 
apply to them, and consequently impart to them the same 
rights, and impose upon them, the same obligations which 
pertained to the elder members of the confederacy ? If 
this be not the reason, 1 demand of gentlemen to tell 
me what it is; but, whatever may be the principle, it is 
entirely sufficient for all the purposes of my argumejit, 



13 

that all agree, that the several prorisions of the constitu- 
tion, which I have before quoted, do, in poait of fact, ap- 
ply to, and operate upon the nexv, as much as upon the 
okl states. If this be tlie case, the federal rights and 
obligations, of the new states and their citizens, are as 
much fixed by the constitution, as those of the original 
states; the grants of municipal power made by the new 
states, and the reservation of the remainder to them, are 
as much fixed by the constitution, as are those of the ori- 
ginal states. But what is settled by the constitution, can- 
not be altered by law. If the proposed amendment, 
then, embrace a provision, which alters the powers or 
rights of the new states, or their citizens, in any degree, 
either by enlarging or diminishing them, then it is void, 
as being in conflict with the constitution, which, I have 
jiist shewn, has settled those rights and powers, and 
which is paramount to the law. 

I will now endeavor to show, beyond all question, that 
the effect of the proposed amendment is to diminish the 
rights and powers, of the citizens and state of Missouri. 
"When this amendment shall be passed, a citizen of Mis- 
souri cannot carry into that state, slaves from any portion 
of the United States; a citizen of Virginia, will have the 
right to carry them into his state. I ask you, sir, if these 
two citizens be equal ? And yet one of the clauses of 
the constitution, which I have referred to, and which, I 
have shewn, applies to the new states, declares, that " the 
citizens of each state, shall enjoy all the privileges and 
immunities of citizens in the several states." It is said, 
however, that a citizen of Pennsylvania cannot carry a 
slave into that state, and that therefore the citizen of 
Missouri, stands on an equal footing with him. I utterly 
deny the position. Gentlemen here reason from fact to 
principle, Although such is the law of Pennsylvania, it 
is an act of their own legislature, which they were free 
to enact or not, and to repeal at their will : not so with 
Missouri ; for, in tlie first place, we in effect decree it 
for them, and then declare it to be irrepealable without 
our consent. Let us leave all the citizens of the United 
States at liberty, by their own legislation, either to re- 
tain or abolish slavery, and then they are all upon an 
equal footing in point of right, as by the constitution 
they are declared to be : and if they shall exercise that 
riglit in different ways, in the several states, and thus 
piit themselves in different situations in point oifact, it 
it is an act of thtrir own will, with which we have nothing 
to do. 

It is said, however, in a memorial presented to us, that 
this principle would lead to monstrous consequences ; 
that if there were but a single state in the Union, which 
9 



14 

tolerated slavery, this principle would not only enable 
the citizens of that state, to carry slaves to a state whose 
laws fo: bade it, but would even enable citizens of the 
latter state to hold them, contrary to their own laws. 
These consequences, if they could follow, would indeed 
be monstrous ; but I think I shall be able to shew, that 
the fallacy of reasoning which leads to them, is still more 
so. Our principle does not claim for the citizens of one 
state, greater privileges than citizens of the other states 
enjoy, but the same only Now it is obvious, that, if a 
citizen of Virginia could hold slaves in Pennsylvania, he 
would enjoy greater privileges than a citizen of that state. 
This obviates the first part of the objection; the second 
part is as easily obviated. I have already shewn you that 
the citizens of two states are perfectly equal in point of 
right, when they are left at liberty to retain or abolish 
slavery. If the one retain, and the other abolish it, it is 
the exercise of their own will, expressed by their ow n 
representatives, which produces the difference in their 
situations. The true principle is this : As in Virginia 
slavery is tolerated, a Pennsylvanian is equally with a 
Virginian entitled to hold a slave there ; as in Pennsyl- 
vania slavery is not tolerated, the citizens of neither state 
can hold a slave there : but it it competent for either state 
to vary its legislative provisions in this respect, at its own 
will. 

Let us now see, whether the proposed amendment 
does not diminish the powers of Missouri as a state. The 
^standard by which to ascertain the powers of a state, is 
furnished, first, by the grant of legislative power to Con- 
gress; secondly, by the prohibitions upon the powers of 
the states. All other powers, not included in this grant, 
or in these prohibitions, remain with tlie states. Such is 
the explicit declaration of the 10th article ofthe amend- 
ments, already quoted. Now, sir, no man has pretended 
that the power is granted to the Federal government to 
abolish slavery, or that it is prohibited to the states to re- 
tain it. According to tiie positive provision of the 10th 
amendment, therefore, it is retained ; and yet gentlemen 
<lre now about to exercise this power, as if it were grant- 
ed to us. Gentlemen will at once acknowledge, that they 
would not attempt this in relation to the old states ; and 
why, sir ? Do you answer that all powers not delegated, 
nor prohibited, are reserved to them ? Then say I, you 
yourselves admit, that tlie same article which makes the 
reservation of powers in favor of the old states, applies 
also to the nerv ,- and consequently it cannot be so con- 
strued as to justify, in relation to the new states, what it 
forbids towards tlie old. If, then, tlsa prohibitions and 
the reservations of power equally apply to the new slates ; 



15 

if, as T have shewn, it is not competent for us to enlarge 
the pewers of the states, either by surrendering- any of 
our legislative powers, or by removing any of the prohi- 
bitions, it follews, necessarily, that we cannot diminish 
them, by breaking in upon the fund which they have re- 
served. The same constitution which contains the grant 
to us, and the prohibitions upon the states, secures to 
them the enjoyment of the remainder. 

It has already been asked, with great force, if we can 
break in upon th's reserved stock at all, what will hinder 
us from taking all ? Gentlemen have felt the pressure of 
this argument ; they have seen that, without some limi- 
tation, we should be led to the consequence that we 
might take all. To avoid this, they have attempted a li- 
mitation, which I will shew you, sir, is perfectly arbitra- 
ry. They have said, and such is the language of the Bos- 
ton memorial, that, from the very nature of the case, we 
cannot take away Federal rights. It would be strange, 
if we could not take away what the constitution gives to 
the states, and yet eould deprive them, of what belonged 
to them in their own right, independently of the consti- 
tution. The position of gentlemen would seem to lead 
to this inference ; and yet it is impossible, that they can 
mean all that their principle would seem to embrace. It 
is impossible they can mean to say, that all rights and 
powers, not Federal, can be taken from the states. It is 
not a federal right, or power in the states, to regulate the 
course of descents. I have purposely selected this exam- 
ple, because in more than one nstance in the Federalist, 
this very case is put, as shewing that, by no latitude of 
construction, could Congress interfere with it ; and yet, 
if there be no other limitation upon us, except that we 
cannot touch Federal rights, we might even interfere 
with this subject. Indeed, sir, if another principle in the 
Boston memorial be correct, it would lead to the conclu- 
sion, that we might interpose in the regulation of des- 
cents : it is this : that Congress might attach, as a condi- 
tion to the sale of its lands, that the owners should never 
own slaves. If they could do this, it would be more rea- 
sonable that they should have the power of regulating 
descents. The argument would stand thus : We cannot 
trust the people of Missouri to legislate for themselves, 
because, possibly, they might establish in their law of 
descents the principle of primogeniture; and might au- 
thorize the perpetuation of estates in the eldest male, by 
the doctrine of entails. If they should do this, they would 
create an aristocracy in the counti-y, which would be un- 
friendly to the principle of republican government, which 
rests upon the basis of equality. But we are bound to 
guaranty to every state in the Union^ a republican form 



16 

of government ; therefore, we will interfere with their 
legislation in regulating' the course of descents, I appeal 
to tile committee, wiiether this reasoning would not be 
mure plausiblf, than anj- which could be urged in favor 
of the condition, of not cultivating lands by slaves. Yet I 
hope no man will contend, that we could regulate the 
course of descents. Tlicre are rights and powers, not 
Federal, then, which we cannot take away. To what rule 
shall we resort, to ascertain which they are ? 1 answer, in 
the language of the Boston memorial, that it results, from 
the very nature of the case, tliat we can deprive a state 
of no right, federal or n.unicipal, which is granted, or 
reserved to it by the constitution. Take this rule, all is 
plain and intelligible ; discard it, and every thing is in- 
volved in uncertainty and confusion. 

An attempt has been made, hovv'^ever, to distinguish this 
subject from the general rule, arising out of the constitu- 
tion, upon this ground, that slavery was a question ad- 
justed by compromise, and that therefore no states but 
those which were the original parties to the constitution 
can claim the benefit of that compromise ; I think it will 
be found sir, that this position is just as untenable, as 
the various others from which gentlemen have, I trust, 
been driven. There were other subjects besides sla- 
very, adjusted by compromise; I will mention the most 
prominent one, that of an equal representation in the 
Senate. This is incontestibly proven by the cu'cumstance, 
that in the clause providing for amendments, it is declar- 
ed, that the constitution shall not even be so amended, as 
to deprive any state of its equal suffrage in the Senate, 
without its own consent ; this is the only provision which 
is forever put beyond the reachof amendment, in the or- 
dinary mode. Now, sir, this was emphatically the work 
of a compromise, in a vital part of the constitution ; the 
principle ot gentlemen, if true, would lead to the conclu- 
sion, that the new states were not entitled to the bene- 
lit of this provision, because ihey were not parties to 
the compromise ; yet no gentleman will maintain this po- 
sition ; and if he will not, he must give up the other up- 
on the subject of slavery. Gentlemen complain of what 
they consider injustice, in the southern representation 
being increased by their slaves ; if they could even 
shew this, yet they could not, in this way, attempt to al- 
ter it. But, upon their own grounds, I am prepared to 
shew, that the hardship is on our side ; for this purpose 
I beg leave to introduce to your attention Virginia, and 
Indiana ; the whole representation of Virginia in this 
House is twenty-three, of which number she is entitled 
to sixteen, from her free population, and to seven, from 
her slaves ; Indiana in this House, is entitled to one mem- 



17 

faer ; Virginia then has a right to sixteen times as many 
members here as Indiana, even from her free population; 
but in the Senate,Indiana,by a provision of the constitution, 
irrevocable without her ovrn consent, is equal to Virginia. 
It thus appears that whilst m one House, Virginia, by her 
slaves, receives an increase of less than one half her re- 
presentation ; Indiana, in the other, has her relative 
weight multiplied fifteen times, and that too as I have 
shewn, by an irrepealable provision of the constitution, 
without her own consent; V^Hiilst Virginia is liable by an 
amendment of the constitution, even against her consent 
to be deprived of that part of her representation which 
she derives from her slaves. I will say nothing about 
our being taxed on account of our slaves, in the same pro- 
portion, in which they increase our representation, as that 
has been already presented to j-ou. 

But, say gentlemen, the powers which the constitution 
does not give us, we can get from the several states by 
compact. They say that both the United States, and the 
state of Missouri, are competent, to make a contract; and 
that if the one party make a proposition, and the other 
accept it, this is obligatory on them both. Even if this 
principle were true, an abundant answer is furnished by 
an argument which I believe has been already urged, 
and which I shall therefore only state, without pursuing 
it ; it is, that by the treaty, which was a compact prior 
in point of time, and paramount in point of obligation, 
the people of Missouri have acquired certain rights; that 
therefore it is not competent for you, merely because 
you are the stronger to say, that you will not comply with 
its stipulations, unless they will agree to another com- 
pact, the effect of which will be, to deprive them of one 
of the rights, which I shall attempt hereafter to shew, 
when I come to speak of the treaty more at large, it 
gave them, i 

But let us examine the gentlemen's proposition, as to 
the competency of the United States, and the states, to 
make compacts. It is true only in a very qualified sense, 
as I will now attempt to shew you. The constitution au- 
thorises Congress to procure by cession a seat of govern- 
ment, and by purchase, scites for forts, arsenals &c. from 
the several states ; it authorises the states, by consent of 
Congress, to make compacts with each other, and with 
foreign powers ; probably the power to admit new states, 
connected with the prohibition to form them out of the 
territory of others, without the consent of Congress and 
the states concerned, will justify the cession of territory 
by the states, for the sole purpose, however, of forming 
Republican slates. Nov/, sir, quo ad the particular sub- 
jects which I have mentioned, tlie constitution imparts to 
2# 



18 

the United States, and to the states, as the case may be, 
a competency to contract ; if gentlemen mean to extend 
that competency one iota beyond these subjects, then I 
utterly deny their principle. We have been referred to 
many compacts, which have been made by Congress and 
the several states; without yielding to the force of pre- 
cedents, if not justified by the constitution, but protest- 
ing against them, I think 1 can venture to say that most if 
not all the compacts referred to, will be found to be of the 
description which I have mentioned. But we have been 
referred to some of the stipulations of those compacts, 
particularly between Virginia and Kentucky, and have 
been asked, whence was the power derived to make 
them ? It has already been shewn, tliat the constitution 
gives them the power, with the assent of Congress, to 
make compacts, subject of course to the hmitation, that 
they do not violate that instrument. As to the stipula- 
tions themselves, it will be found, that almost all of them, 
are mere declarations of what would otherwise have ex- 
isted, by virtue of the constitution; for example, Kentucky 
shall bear her equal part of the pubUc debt; the naviga- 
tion of the Ohio shall be common between the citizens 
of the two states ; non-residents' lands, being citizens 
of Virginia, shall not be taxed higher than residents ; 
the first provision is the inevitable consequence of Ken- 
tucky becoming a member of the Union, whereupon she 
was liable to her proportion of taxation ; the second and 
third are botli emphatically embraced by the provi8ion,that 
the citizens of each state, shall enjoy all the privileges 
and immunities of citizens of the several states. The 
same remarks apply to almost all the stipulations, in the 
compacts between Congress and the states ; if an excep- 
tion can be found, I have only to say that we cannot jus- 
tify one violation of the constitution by another. The 
question here, however, is of an entirely different kind ; 
it is not a question about the cession of territory, be- 
tween Congress and a state, nor about h compact between 
two stales, containing provisions to secure a community 
of rights and privileges between their citizens, which the 
constitution itself secured ; but it is, whether Congress 
can by a compact with a state, obtain from that state a 
surrender of any portion of its sovereignty ? Let us put a 
case, and one in relation to an old state, fori think 1 may 
now assume, that the old and new stand on the same 
ground. Would Virginia, then, be bound by a contract 
made with Congress, by which she should stipulate to es- 
tablish a particular course of descents, or a particular 
code of criminal jurisprudence? No sir, the Member 
from Pennsylvania t'Mr. Sei'geant) after quoting so many 
compacts, which did not apply, acknowledged that if the 



19 

one now proposed, would in any degree impair the Sotc- 
reignty of Missouri, it could not be sustained. Now, sir, 
it seems to me, that it is only necessary to define what 
sovereignty is, with the aid of this concession, to shew 
that the amendment must be abandoned. A state, to be 
sovereign and independent, must govern itself by its 
own authority and laws, without the interference of any 
foreign power. 

I ask, then, if this amendment prevail, will Missouri 
govern herself by her own authority and laws, in rela- 
tion to the subject of slavery ? On the contrary, do we 
not by the amendment say to her, that she shall in the 
first instance submit to our will, contrary to her own, and 
that not by an act of ordinary legislation, but by one, 
which we require to be made irrevocable without our 
consent ? If it be said, that ours is not a foreign interfe- 
rence, I answer in the language which 1 have formerly 
used, that, as to any subject over which, a power is not 
given to the general government, and I trust I have pro- 
ven this is one of that kind ; that government is a foreign 
one to the states, as much as any government in Europe. 
But it is asked whether it is essential to sovereignty, that 
a state should have slavery in its bosom f I answer no 
sir ; but it is of the very essence of sovereignty, that a 
state should have the power of deciding for itself, whe- 
ther it will, or will not, tolerate slavery. Gentlemen 
pressed by this reasoning, retreat to another ground ; 
they say that slavery is a moral wrong, and as such cannot 
be the subject of sovereignty ; I answer that it is essen- 
tial to sovereignty, and the highest act of its exercise, 
to decide what is embraced within its hmits, and that the 
very act of one government, attempting to decide this 
question for another, is a glaring violation of the sovereign- 
ty of that other ; I answer further that sovereignty in re- 
lation to the internal concerns of a state, has no limits but 
the discretion and moral sense of the state itself, unless it 
relate to a subject, the power over which has been spe- 
cially delegated, audit has been the purpose of my whole 
argument to prove, that this has not been so delegated. 
Suppose that a state, like ancient Sparta, should by its 
laws even sanction the barbarous practice of putting their 
Helotes to death;' suppose that it was so lost to the moral 
sense, as to permit the most enormous crimes against 
the lawsof morahty, or religion, to escape with impunity. 
Have we the power to interfere in these matters of mu- 
nicipal legislation, unless it be in relation to a subject 
over which the constitution gives us power ? I must be 
pardoned for repealing, that we have no more than one 
of the governments of Europe. 

But in whatever hght wq look upon the subject of sla- 



• so 

veiy, whether as a moral wrong or not, whether as a 
rightful subject matter of sovereign power, or not, we 
know that it existed in many of the old states, at the for- 
mation of the constitution; that it has continued to exist; 
that there are several clauses in the constitution, which 
have direct reference to it, giving protection to the mas- 
ter in reclaiming the services of his slave, and conferring 
political power, and creating a liability to taxation, with 
an acknowledged view, to this kind of population ; this is 
admitted by all to be the case, as it respects the old 
states ; I have shewn again, and again, that the new states 
and their citizens have all the rights, privileges, immuni- 
ties, and powers of the old states. If then it be a right, 
or if you please a wrong, in the old states, and their 
citizens, to hold slaves beyond our control, then the 
new states and their citizens claim the same right, or the 
same wrong, call it by what name you please. 

It has been said by the two gentlemen from Pennsylva- 
nia, (Mr. Hemphill and Mi*. Sergeant,) that the. states 
had the right to admit new states upon conditions to be 
prescribed by themselves ; and it lias been asked, what 
has become of that power ? If they have given to Con- 
gress the simple power of admission, is the other part 
of the power annihilated, or does it yet remain with the 
states ? To these questions I answer, without difficulty, 
that the states did possess the power of admitting upon 
condition ; that this part of their power is neither anni- 
hilated, nor does it remain with them; that they have 
given to Congress the power to admit; and that they 
have declared the terras and conditions of that admission, 
in the various provisions of the constitution. 

Sir, the conclusion of the whole matter is this : The 
.states which were the original parties to the constitution, 
have given to Congress, the power of extending indefi- 
nitely the territory, over which their dominion is to be 
exercised, by tlie admission of new states; but they 
have not given to Congress, the right to increase their 
capital stock of power, either by taking, by their own 
will, or by the joint will of themselves, and any state or 
states, any attribute of their sovereignty; the first would 
be an injury to the individtial state, from which it was 
taken, the second would be an injury to all the states, 
which compose the confederacy. No, sir, the sum of the 
power of Congress is fixed by the terms of the constitu- 
tion, in a manner irrevocable, except in the mi de pre- 
scribe d f >r amendment; the states have not entrusted to 
any body of men on earlh, a power wiiich might en;ible 
them to disturb the poUtical balance, which is adjusted 
with S',) mucli care in the constitution ; they have not left 
it to Congress, to make the new states either greater or 



II 



SI 



smaller than themselves, but have made their own poli- 
tical dimensions, as marked out in the constitution, the 
precise standard for the formation of those states, which 
should come into their family by adoption. 

I come now to speak of the influence of the treaty of 
1803 upon this quescion. The third article provides, 
" that the inliahitaTits of the ceded territory shall be in- 
corporated in the Union of the United States, and admit- 
ted as soon as possible, according- to the principles of the 
tederal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rig-i.ts, 
advantages, and immunities, of citizens of tJie United 
States; and, m the mean time, they shall be maintained 
and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, pro- 
perty, and the religion which they profess." An atiempt 
ftas been made to assail the validity of this article, upon 
the ground, that it was an interference, on tJie part of 
the treaty-making- department of our government, with 
the power oi Congress, to whom authority is given by 
the constitution to admit new states. A little examination 
ot this objection will shew, that it cannot be sustained • 
the treaty-making power, in the exercise of their con- 
stitutional functions, contracted to purchase of a foreign 
state the territory, the rights of a part of which are now 
in question. They stipulated, in the article which has 
just been quoted, that they should be incorporated in 
the Union, and admitted, as soon as possible, to a parti- 
cipation m all the rights, advantages, and immunities, of 
citizens of the United States. Here, then, is a contract, 
by the power in our government competent to make it, 
tor the acquisition of people and territory, upon condi- 
tions, not in violation of our constitatici^, but 5" ^J^^/>h 

d^-Srw'^ ^'f ^^- ^' '' ^^""' ^'^' ^'^^^' according t^oWe 
distribution of power among.st the respective depart- 
ments of our government, the stipulations in favor of the 
ceded country, ai-e to be actually performed by Congress; 

l?;i TT''''* ^^^ "'°"^>^ ^° ^^ P'-^^^' ^s tJ^e consider, 
tvle }u . ^^^^^°"' "i"st be appropriated by Con- 
nltZ' r ^^^^^^» "« ^"^^ foreign powers, there is no 
organ by which a contract can be made, whatever may 
be the subject matter of it, but that department, which 
reSJlr^^'^K? "^^^^treaties. If the treaty, whei made 
fhe nruA'; -^'"rn^'"'^' by the constitutio^, falls within 
the jurisdiction of Congress, it results, from the nature 

thot r" ^""''^'"""^"^ ""'^ ''^^ distribution of its powers, 
rn^!. ^^'!'' ''''T°> '^'^^°'^^ t^^eir own assent, by the 
^^^^^.^P^^-^'^on of the treaty, be bound to execute its 
provisions. But when that assent is given, more espe- 

a'c'acT u7'r' "• '" ''f 'f ^^ ^'^^""^by the ac'ptai^ce 
thenfrpf '^\^f *'^'«" of the subject matter acquired, 
then a refusal to comply with the conditions of the ac* 



22 

quisition would be in violation, not only of the moral 
duty imposed by the cons'itution, but also af the plight- 
ed faith of the nation. What are the facts in the present 
case ? Congress have taken possession of the territory 
purchased ; they have paid almost the whole considera- 
tion ; they have derived large sums of money from the 
actual sale of the laud, and, by repeated acts of legisla- 
tion, have in various wttys exercised authority over the 
people and soil. We are, then, as much bound by our 
own assent, in this case, as a private man, whose agent 
has purchased an estate for him, subject to mortgage, 
would be to discharge that mortgage, if, with a know- 
ledge of the incumbrance, he took possession of the 
estate, and, either by cultivation or sale, received the 
benefit of the purchase. 

Assuming it, then, to be proven, that we are under 
the double obligation, first, of moral duty, and, secondly, 
of plighted faith, to admit Missouri into the Union, and 
to extend to her citizens all the rights, advantages, and 
immunities, of citizens of the United States, the next 
question which presents itself is tills — What are those 
rights, advantages, and immunities ? And here, sir, I 
hcg leave to refer to the various provisions of the consti- 
tution, which I have already examined, as shewing what 
they are ; claiming for the state and citizens of Missouri 
the same powers and rights precisely, as by the constitu- 
tion are recognized as belonging to the original states, 
either by grant, or reservation, and, amongst others, the 
power in the state by its own will, to regulate its own 
internal concerns, and to decide for itself, whether it will 
lolcittw slavery'; and, if it should so will, the right in its 
citizens to the slaves which they now hold, to their fu- 
ture progeny, and to acquire and carry into that state 
other slaves from any portion of the United States. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (^Mr. Sergeant) ob- 
jected, that the terms of the treaty embraced only the in- 
habitants residing there at its date. What then, sir, is 
the condition of the children of those inhabitants, and 
what has it been for the 17 years which have elapsed 
since that period .' Will the gentleman say, that the pro- 
visions of the treaty do not extend to them ? As well 
might it be said, tliat those who are born in a country af- 
ter the formation of its constitution, are not entitled to 
share in its benefits. What, too, sir, let me ask, is the 
condition of citizens of the United States, who have re- 
moved to that country, having purchased lands from us ? 
They are entitled to claim the benefit, in my opinion, of 
the treaty and constitution both ; but, beyond all doubt, 
the moment the state of Missouri is admitted into the 
Union, the constitution, by the provision which I have so 



23 

often quoted, secures to them an equality, a community 
ofpnvileges and immunities, with their fellow citizens 
throughout the United States; and gives to the state, as 
such, equal rights and powers with the other states of the 
Union, the extent of which I have already shewn. 

The next clause from which the right to impose this 
restriction is derived, is that which gives us power to 
make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the 
territory of the United States. I do not propose to go 
into the general question, how far our power extends 
over the territories, as such : that question will hereafter 
be distinctly presented to our consideration. Deferring, 
therefore, the general enquiry till that occasion, I beff 
leave to remmd the committee that, as it respects the 
now territory of Missouri, we have, by one of our own re- 
gulations, given it a legislative bods ; that we have ex- 
tended to that body the whole power of legislation, sub- 
ject only to the limitation that their laws shall not be in- 
consistent with the constitution and laws of the United 
States ; a limitation to which every state in the Union is 
equally subject; the question of slavery is one of a le- 
^slative character: it, therefore, already belongs to 
them to decide it by our own grant. Let me ask gentle- 
men, can a grant of political power be revoked at the will 
of those who grant it ? Would it not excite some sur- 
prize m this ha'I, to talk of revoking a common charter of 
incorporation, such as that of the Bank of the United 
States, unless for some cause of forfeiture of that char- 
ter ? I do not mean now to say, what the extent of h gis- 
lative power is, in relation to that subject ; some modern 
writers of merit seem to countenance the idea, that there 
are strong cases, in which it would be a legitimate exer- 
cise of power : but of this I am sure— that this house 
would not undertake to revoke the most common char- 
ter which they had granted, unless for some act of for- 
teiture ; and yet it seems to be thought by many an act 
quite of ordinary legislation, to revoke the most exalted 
charter which can be created— that of the grant of legis- 
lative power. If you can take from a territory a power 
ot this kind, when once granted, what would hinder you 
from repealing the very act, by which you would admit 
che same territory into the Union ? They are both grants 
ot political power, differing onlv in degree. But, sir, let 
this question be as it may concerning the territories, all 
further enquu-y into wliich I shall defer till that subject 
comes up, it h:is no application to the present case, which 
is the admission of a state. Whatever is our power over 
the territories, it is acknowledged that it co-exists with 
the territorial condition, and that uiien that ceases the 
power over them, as such, ceases ako. It is acknowledge 



24 

edg-cd, that we could "not impose this condition after the 
state is admitted; and yet it is contended, that it may be 
done just before its admission, by virtue of a territorial 
power, which must necessarily cease to exist, at the mo- 
ment when the admission takes place : in a word, it is ar- 
gued that, by virtue of a power confessedl}^ temporary, 
we can impose a condition, in its character perpetual, if 
we so will. I cannot shew the glaring- impropriety of 
this position in so palpable a mode, as by likening it to a 
case of municipal law. Let us put the case of guardian 
and ward. A guardian has power to make leases of his 
ward's land, during his minority, and to expire with it; 
the moment after his ward reaches majority, he has no 
power over the estate ; and yet, sir, upon the principle 
now contended for, he might .enter into a contract the 
day before the minority ceased, which would bind the 
ward and his heirs forever. If such a proposition as this, 
were stated in the judicial hall, in another part of this 
Capitol, the gentleman would be told, that it could not 
even be received for discussion. 

The next clause in the constitution, from which the 
power to impose this restriction is attempted to be de- 
rived, is that by which it is declared that " The migra- 
tion or importation of such persons as any of the stutea 
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be pro- 
hibited prior to the year 1808.'* Under this it is con- 
tended, that slaves may be prevented from passing from 
one state to another. It has already been properly said, 
that if that were the correct construction, it ought, being 
a legislative power, to be executed by an act of Congress, 
having equal effect upon all the states, and not by an ir- 
revocable compact, operating on one only. But, sir, in - 
dependently of this objection, there are two other an- 
swers to the argument attempted to be derived from this 
clause, which I consider conclusive. The first is, that the 
word migration applies \.o Jreemen^ not slaves. The ori- 
gin and received acceptation of the term prove this. I 
think I can shew it, too, by reference to tlie probable 
object of the clause, anil the conflicting interests of dif- 
ferent sections of the country which it attempted to re- 
concile. 

Let it he recollected, that the constitution entitled the 
slave holding states to a representation foimded, in a cer- 
tain proportion, upon their slave population. Now, sir, 
1 think it fair to conclude, as it was agreed that Congress 
should not have the power to proliibit the importation of 
slavespriorto 1 80"^, by which importation the representation 
of the slave holding states would be increased, that the 
jealousy of the non slave iiolding states required as an 
offset to this, that the migration of free persons, by 



Q5 



which their representation would be increased, should 
not be prohibited till the same period. But, sir, there is 
an answer, arising- from the phraseoiog-y of the clause, 
which seems to me to put an end to the question • the 
woras are : « The migration or importation of such per- 
sons as any of the states now existing- shall think proper 
to admit, shall not be prohibited." Now this word "ad- 
rmt, proves incontestably that the word migration, whe- 
ther it relates to free persons or slaves, looks to persons 
commg from abroad ; for, if they were already in the 
states, they could not be admitted. Sir, it would be a 
solecism m lang-uage, to talk of admitting a man into a 
house, who was already in it. 

The last source from which gentlemen have sought the 
power of imposing this restriction, is the clause which 
authorises Congress " to regulate commerce amongst the 

told, that this clause meant only to enable Congress, by 
uniform and equal reg.ilations, to prevent one state fVom 
imposing injurious duties upon the commerce of others 
passing through its jurisdiction. This is proven, first, by 

IherSh'J ^'?" °^ '"^^ P^^^'^^ ^y '^^ Federalist, 

Where the prmciple lust mentioned is stated as the rea- 

IZ^ v^ f"^ ^"^ Its adoption. I will add, that a striking 
exemplification of the principle will be found 1^ the re- 

inT^f'T""''^-^^''^'"* of New York, Connecticut, 
and New Jersey; it is proven, also, by those provisions 
ofthe constitution which forbid Congress from givini 
by any regulation of commerce, a preference to the ports 

vP«^?r '^7^'"^^°'^ «f another, and declaring,\hat 
vessels bound to or from one state, shall not be obliged 
to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. ^ 

cW as^Iotw"o^'''P' -^^ '°'^' "'.^"' ^" ^^^^^5°" t« this 
case S !ll ?. ^"ncermng migration, that if it touch the 

ratfon .k./ n K^'"'^''"^ ^^''^''' ^'^^ '^^'«t, in its ope- 

mhte^ th . ^ '^^ ''^^^' ^''^^- To shew to the com- 

W fnr^« f ''"^'""''''P.'J^'y ^^'^^^^ amendment, as rest- 
ing for lis support unon this clause, permit me for a mo 

ment to present to you the shape of a bill hTvin^an"n" 

propnate title, and followed by the enactm tf whkh 

gentlemen propose. As I have shewn to you, that he 

new states have all the rights of the old, indu ge me so 

far as to substitute Maryknd for Missouri. The aTpro^ 

priatc t.tle, then, as derived from the lan£rua-l oi^tlt 

actmeiu iTi I •'^'^'^''u ' ^'^^^^" N«^^' «'^-' ^or the en- 
"STtenLl!?? lu '^^^^^"^^ ^« gentlemen propose; 
shall m; J ? r ^y ^^^ ^^"^^^' ^^- tl^'^t hereafter no slave 
^hall migme from any part of the United States, into 



' ^6 

Maryland ; that the children who shall be hereafter bera, 
of all the slaves now in that state, shall be free ; and that 
Maryland shall provide for this, by an act, irrevocable 
without the consent of Congress." Such a bill would in- 
deed be like the painting of Horace, with a human head, 
but in another part, resembling- the fish. I should like to 
see SHch an act, with such a title, published in the Intelli- 
g-encer. Risum teneatis amici P Would not Maryland na- 
turally enquire, why single this state out, and put it un- 
der your prohibition ? Sir, if you mean to regulate com* 
meice,then it must be amongst the several states; but ac- 
cording to this law, a slave may migrate to Virginia, but 
he cannot migrate to Maryland; it is liable, then, to the 
strong objection, that it is unequal and partial in its ope- 
ration But, sir, Maryland would press you with other 
objections of an unanswerable kind ; she would tell you, 
that commerce ex vi termmi, implies buying" and selling', 
an exchange of equivalents ; but your law will embrace 
many cases, where there is no buying and selling ; no 
exchange of equivalents, and consequently, no commerce 
to regulate. She would instance the case of slaves being 
derived to a citizen of Maryland, by intestacy, by devise, 
or by marriage. She would state the case of a citizen of 
another state, removing to Maryland, and carrying his 
own slaves with him ; in not one of these cases is there 
the slightest pretence of commerce, and yet your law 
would embrace them all. She would tell you, too, that 
if she were to pass any act at all, she must consult her 
own will, her own views of expediency ; and that what 
she enacted, she claimed the power to repeal, without 
consulting Congress. 

But, sir, the strongest objection lies yet behind. The 
law which I have supposed, upon the model of this a- 
mendment, emancipates the children of all the slaves now 
in Maryland. Is this too, a regulation of commerce ? It 
is a contradiction in terms, to give ii such a name. This 
last part of the bill, sir, is the most alarming in its conse- 
quences, for it goes directly to the emancipation of sla- 
very throughout the whole United States, after the pre- 
sent generation shall become extinct; that is, in the life 
of one man— for, whilst the candles are all burning, tho* 
milUons may be embraced, yet the life of the longest 
liver terminates the period. And have you the power to 
emancipate the children of acknowledged slaves ? Yes, 
says one gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Hemphill ;) 
for he asked, can a man have a vested interest in an un- 
born human heing ? and he answered, no. If this be the 
doctrine, sir, though that gentleman did not apply it, and 
1 beUeve did not intend to apply it, to the old states, I 



27 

t«peat again, that it proclaims universal emancipation, 
after failure of the present generation of slaves. Sir, it is 
of no importance, that the present Congress do not apply 
it : we are but actors, who fret our busy hour upon the 
stage, and then pass away ; others will come to act theip 
parts, and these principles may then be put into practi- 
cal execution, in their utmost extent. I will not detain 
the committee to prove, that a property in the parent im- 
plies property in the progeny. The maxim " Partus 
sequitur ventrem^' is as old as the civil law ; it is founded 
upon the immutable principle, that wherever I have pro- 
perty in the capital stock, I have the same property in 
its products. He who owns the land, owns all the fruit 
whicfeit produces. If, then, j'ou admit my property in the 
parent, you cannot deny it in the child. If, indeed, you de- 
ny my right to a vested interest in an unborn human 
being, you may perhaps go one step further, and deny the 
same interest m those who row exist. The argument is 
as strong in one case as the other. Assume but this 
principle, and then you need not wait for futurity, to do 
this great work of emancipation. No, sir, you may say at 
once to every bondman in the United States, you are free. 
I have now sir, finished my view of this question. I be- 
lieve upon my conscience, that the proposed restriction, 
IS a violation of the constitution ; I trust I have proven 
it; if I have, or if there be even serious doubt, I conjure 
the committee to pause, before they take the ste^^ pro- 
posed ; sir, it was long a desideratum in politics, to devise 
a government like ours, which should, by the union of 
many sovereign states, each retaining its sovereignty for 
municipal purposes, combine the strength of a monarchy, 
with the freedom of republic. With us, it is " in the full tide 
of successful experiment." Let us not take any course 
calculated to arrest its success ; such I fear will be the 
unhappy tendency, of the present measure. Let it not 
be supposed that I come here, the apostle of disunionn; no 
sir, I look upon the Union of those states, as the ark of 
our political safety ; if that be lost, we may bid farewell, a 
long farewell, to all our pleasing hopes and fond antici- 
pations of future greatness, and glory. They will 
be as the illusions of a deceitful dream. But, whilst I 
deprecate dis union as the most tremendous evil, I can- 
not shut my eyes, against the light of experience ; I can- 
not turn a deaf ear, to the warning voice of history ; from 
these we learn, that Harmonyy is the spirit which can 
alone animate and sustain a confederate republic. Whilst 
this spirit exists, it is displayed in acts of legislation, re- 
ciprocally beneficent to every member of the confeder- 
acy, and these become new Ugaments, to bind them to- 



28 

aether in the bonds of brotherhood ; this spirit is not alj 
at once extinguished, nor are the bonds of union, sudden- 
ly burst asunder: but when instead of this beneficent spirit 
of legislation, which I have described, a different course 
prevails, this spirit of Harmony gives way successively 
to jealousy, distrust, and, finally, discord ; let but this last, 
spring up amongst us, you may consider the days of the 
republic as numbered, and that it is fast hastening to its 
dissolution. 

When that sad catastroplie shall befal us, this noble 
confederacy, which, in its undivided state, could stand 
against a world in arms, will be broken, if not into its 
constituent parts, into some minor confederacies, the vic- 
tims of foreign intrigue and of their own border hatred. 
Where then will be your commerce, which covers every 
sea? where your army and navy, the means of your de- 
fence, the instruments of your glory ? They will be re- 
membered only, to make the contrast with your then si- 
tuation more painful. What will become, then, of this 
boundless tract of western land, the subject of the pre- 
sent contest, which has poured, and would continue to 
pour, such I'ich streams of wealth into your treasury ? It 
may become the theatre on which the title to itself may 
be decided, not by congressional debate, not by construc- 
tion of -treaties or constitutions, but by that force which 
alwav.aJ)egins where constitutions end. I conjure yoa 
therppeware, lest, by this measure, you excite the dis- 
content of one half of the Union, by legislating injuri- 
ously to them, upon a subject in which they have so 
deep a stake of interest, and you have none, in point of 
property; take care that you do not awaken the painful 
reflection, that the federal arm is strong only to destroy. 
I hope and trust that the wisdom of our councils may 
be such, as to avert these evils; but he knows little of 
the human character, who does not fear that consequences 
' like these may follow, if the hand from which the great- 
est good is looked for, be the one which deals out the 
deepest injury. 

God grant that, in deciding this question, we may bear 
in mind this excellent motto, " vmited >ve stand, divideti 
we fall." 



--5 



^- 



S^ f 



*'• 




















0^ oO-.^^O^ ,^^^ , 





^^ .* 




> 



« 












m 



wiit^iiS 



im 



111 
It 

m 

I'M 



